This is the mail archive of the
gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: optimization/6627: -fno-align-functions regression from 2.95
- From: obrien at freebsd dot org
- To: nobody at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org,
- Date: 27 Jun 2002 20:16:01 -0000
- Subject: Re: optimization/6627: -fno-align-functions regression from 2.95
- Reply-to: obrien at freebsd dot org
The following reply was made to PR optimization/6627; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: obrien@freebsd.org
To: audit@freebsd.org, obrien@freebsd.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org,
gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, current@freebsd.org, jhb@freebsd.org,
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: optimization/6627: -fno-align-functions regression from 2.95
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
rth said at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-05/msg00989.html he would not
raise the priority for 3.1.1. But this is a regression and I hope maybe
something can be done about it. Maybe a fix based on a #define one must
explicitly turn on when building GCC.
I do not see why a fix cannot go in (in some form). If a C++ user asks for
an alignment of `1' then give it to them -- since when has C/C++ been about
not letting the user shoot their foot off? Or, can't the fix take into
account that I am compiling C and not C++?
This regression is still causing us problems in FreeBSD's boot code due to
the larger size the code produces. I'm sure this could be an issue for
some embedded users.