From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32530 invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2002 15:19:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 32523 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2002 15:19:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Nov 2002 15:19:09 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C4E3F30; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:18:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DE633E1.7060900@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 07:19:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Cc: Kris Warkentin , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa?] Add frame_align(); Was: ARM stack alignment on hand called functions References: <200211280926.gAS9QJE06150@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00713.txt.bz2 >> +/* Ensure that the ARM's stack pointer has the correct alignment for a >> + new frame. */ >> +static CORE_ADDR >> +arm_frame_align (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, CORE_ADDR addr) >> +{ >> + return (addr & -16); >> +} > > > Yuck, two's complement assumption. I much prefer ~0xf in this case. > > But why so much. The maximum stack alignment you'll see on an ARM is 8 > bytes. The function was lifted from the PPC code. And, hey, what's a few extra bytes between friends? :-) Does (addr & 0x7) look better? Andrew