From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Dec 13 15:23:41 2000 From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 13 15:23:39 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from earth.backplane.com (placeholder-dcat-1076843399.broadbandoffice.net [64.47.83.135]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84BF737B404 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:23:39 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by earth.backplane.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) id eBDNNb588363; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:23:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:23:37 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon Message-Id: <200012132323.eBDNNb588363@earth.backplane.com> To: Drew Eckhardt Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: syscall assembly References: <200012132309.eBDN9eh29153@chopper.Poohsticks.ORG> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :> :>gcc tries to align stack to 16 byte boundaries as a speed :>optiminzation. Why it doesn't do this in one instruction is beyond :>me. : :Kocking 16 bytes off the stack pointer won't put it any closer to a :16 byte boundary. This is precisely my problem with gcc's 'optimization'. It's utterly stupid for it to assume that the stack is already 16-byte aligned... it makes it impossible to mix aligned and non-aligned code and still have a reasonably optimal result (e.g. like third party libraries or older libraries or whatever). And it's a huge, unnecessary waste of space when most of the time all you are storing on the stack are ints. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message