Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 16:50:29 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com, cygwin-patches AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2?
Message-ID: <20011102165029.A30532@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-patches AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com, cygwin-patches AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20011102001706 DOT A10347 AT redhat DOT com> <13143191436 DOT 20011102232816 AT logos-m DOT ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <13143191436.20011102232816@logos-m.ru>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i

On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 11:28:16PM +0300, egor duda wrote:
>Hi!
>
>Friday, 02 November, 2001 Christopher Faylor cgf AT redhat DOT com wrote:
>
>CF> I just added the -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 option to Makefile.common.
>CF> Is there a good reason not to do this?  From the description in
>CF> gcc.info, it seems like the cases that they are talking about don't
>CF> affect the cygwin part of things, although it would conceivably be iffy
>CF> to use this switch in the newlib.
>
>CF> The code size reduction is noticeable.
>
>i have no problems with this. I'm getting a lot of "can't inline"
>warnings with gcc-2.95.2 due to to-be-inlined function is defined
>after it's called, however. gcc-3.0.2 doesn't have this problem but i
>wonder if it's feasible to reorganize function order to accommodate
>older compilers? patch attached.

Thank you, Egor!  I didn't realize that it was so easy to fix these.

>btw, what do you think about -Werror ?

I'm in favor of it, in general, but I think there's one bogus warning in
fork.cc currently -- at least under gcc 2.95.3.  It is the "setjmp/longjmp
may clobber local variable" warning (this is not the exact text but it is
something like that).

cgf