From owner-freebsd-current Tue Nov 30 5:35:23 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from ns.demophon.com (ns.demophon.com [193.65.70.13]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9B39F158B4 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:35:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from will@ns.demophon.com) Received: (qmail 25850 invoked by uid 1003); 30 Nov 1999 13:33:37 -0000 Date: 30 Nov 1999 13:33:37 -0000 Message-ID: <19991130133337.25847.qmail@ns.demophon.com> From: Ville-Pertti Keinonen To: marcel@scc.nl Cc: current@freebsd.org In-reply-to: <3843CD23.6221988A@scc.nl> (message from Marcel Moolenaar on Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:12:03 +0100) Subject: Re: kernel: -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 ?? Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > Anyhow, I'll repeat it here - stack alignment does *not* break > > link-compatibility. It does not change calling conventions, it just > > adds padding after the args to ensure that local variables can be > > predictably aligned. > So, how does aligning stackframes affect the inherently static property > of code size then? Instructions are inserted to perform that alignment (add padding). When the alignment is 2 (i.e. on 4-byte boundaries), no padding is required in typical cases. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message