This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] IA-32 bitfields (was Re: libgcc_s, Linux, and PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, and binutils)
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 18:40:12 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] IA-32 bitfields (was Re: libgcc_s, Linux, and PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, and binutils)
- References: <20020807001648.S20867@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <25420000.1028672619@warlock.codesourcery.com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 03:23:39PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> I think this patch is very good, in a technical sense.
Reading the patch again, there might be some problem still lurking
with input like:
struct A
{
char a;
long long b : 61 __attribute__((aligned (4)));
char c;
};
As I misused ADJUST_FIELD_ALIGN instead of
creating new ADJUST_FIELD_TYPE_ALIGN or something, ADJUST_FIELD_ALIGN
will see in this case that DECL_USER_ALIGN is set on the field and bail out,
thus b will be 64-bit aligned.
Now, the question is, should all this PCC_BITFIELD_TYPE_MATTERS and
BITFIELD_NBYTES_LIMITED handling be skipped if DECL_USER_ALIGN is set?
Jakub