From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Copley Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs-26 threads problem [win64] Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 23:00:56 +0100 Message-ID: References: <83h8v7r02e.fsf@gnu.org> <83vajnotik.fsf@gnu.org> <83r2ubosnd.fsf@gnu.org> <83fuaqpzaq.fsf@gnu.org> <837ew2pxx9.fsf@gnu.org> <83efq6khh3.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1507932137 15586 195.159.176.226 (13 Oct 2017 22:02:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 22:02:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Fabrice Popineau , Emacs Development To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 14 00:02:14 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e381t-0002Pt-Ca for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 00:02:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52069 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e381z-0004Hr-1z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 18:02:11 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39823) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e381O-0004HQ-SQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 18:01:35 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e381O-0005Wu-AE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 18:01:34 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-vk0-x230.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400c:c05::230]:43842) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e381N-0005SA-4a; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 18:01:33 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-vk0-x230.google.com with SMTP id t203so5016842vke.0; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 15:01:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vMjo8qF7qOUJdMX86ZdHzJuXd9Ip71J4r7kl5pFm0wA=; b=fb4TK+d4qWVc6Ff7MGYaQcRNP4X3tx7P1pe5iiQsUBUHPMeCZkaNLVFTTkJRVky033 oZZS3VNWshi5N/Qm8NlkBCeqU8zzTGUx6/+I5PKZELlfwF97LdvtZH+x8XhPY9/uqkas L2y79SOZqE6ang8LWBjEBMXyGLhzteAnbGtiHVa0UFfZoGsXg0ggmMqFJrug21bkW/IN LCGLP+sqVYKvvVM8jRZ9FlBxfbQUxdXco63SiC94RGknBAbfwomxnDzxeA530YF5LBvk AMU5SKQq7eSUeBPJtrdbDYpmNm/SB92QzhOAOZczaKsADHw1hxLFdSpnvjjAr5PWfITV LBPw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vMjo8qF7qOUJdMX86ZdHzJuXd9Ip71J4r7kl5pFm0wA=; b=MR6ebrdCF96i5LZuiA1VJfPXkTDZAEGsRTqXD4AvPOGnB0EfZ5VCthix/Da9WeJtOA c5hoiUcg5Osyn3RFCfpNa6UhnkLZM8YmBn00Pi47HKQZS8eOprLf/x4DF9K8njRbnaKB 6+xUczBE4YwrFp0NSe7d4jre7xVKxzJjtrf/q6jwREfteMrYrbhxumjDqW8r5eySB/F7 v3N03/VXG3++vzN4vWcmuA3kUJUMWaTp+7R6uSatft5wfRxLpPNKkh8YsdI1z+cp/Cf6 DsaCMtW37ihw6KzdrUS5t60xeBiqppCuAGBQlrPXMMq6mAtXXGTJ4oTqWrNyBw7ZHMNG LBbg== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaUoBBj3FH6Dbs7SCaz6C9BtPbULXTmuNXWVkQFjYiWrgufADNeq axJd/d8E6DscRedPVgHjr2qr0ujd0EYNbP1mr3y8MhQP X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QCrs0GpTsPN4duWwej04Hn4B9QSoSVntdcBryuRdojl9Pm5V8PapdYUr+AKwcTlp4P+JZzLOwMUNKjYpM6SOMo= X-Received: by 10.31.82.3 with SMTP id g3mr2085823vkb.76.1507932086391; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 15:01:26 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.176.22.115 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 15:00:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83efq6khh3.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400c:c05::230 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:219467 Archived-At: > I'm not sure how to resolve this issue, so ideas and comments on the > analysis are welcome. I think GCC's assumption that 0x40(%rbx) is 16-byte aligned derives through some arithmetic from the assumption that the stack was 16-byte aligned on entry. Can you try adding __attribute__ ((force_align_arg_pointer)) to the thread function? __attribute__ ((force_align_arg_pointer)) static void * run_thread (void *state) {