This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: DATA_ALIGNMENT vs. DECL_USER_ALIGNMENT
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- To: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 22 Apr 2003 21:03:57 -0700
- Subject: Re: DATA_ALIGNMENT vs. DECL_USER_ALIGNMENT
- Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
- References: <10304230111.AA11080@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On Apr 22, 2003, kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner) wrote:
> So the question is when to supress the an optional increase for
> objects and I claim the only time should be if there is an alignment
> specified *for a particular object*.
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I strongly
dislike the idea that factoring out an alignment specification from an
object definition to a typedef, adjusting the object definition to use
the typedef, should have any effect in the way the assembly code
emitted for that object definition.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva at {redhat dot com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva at {lsd dot ic dot unicamp dot br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer