This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: -malign-double


> >Sorry to be a pest, but nobody answered this the last time I asked:
> >
> >I've just noticed that the 3.1 documentation for the -malign-double
> >flag no longer contain the warning about structures; i.e., it used to
> >read:
> >
> >
> >-malign-double'
> >`-mno-align-double'
> > Control whether GCC aligns `double', `long double', and `long
> > long' variables on a two word boundary or a one word boundary.
> > Aligning `double' variables on a two word boundary will produce
> > code that runs somewhat faster on a `Pentium' at the expense of
> > more memory.
> >
> > *Warning:* if you use the `-malign-double' switch, structures
> > containing the above types will be aligned differently than the
> > published application binary interface specifications for the 386.
> >
> >I'd been burned badly by not paying attention to this in the past.
> >
> >What is the current situation?
> >
> >David
> 
> It disappeared during the checkin of this patch
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/Attic/invoke.texi.diff?r1=1.252&r2=1.253
> 
> But the corresponding patch posted to gcc-patches
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-12/msg00719.html
> 
> doesn't mention this.
> 
> Was this intentional?

Definitly not.  Something went wrong with installing the patch.  I will return the note
back to the 3.2 documentation.
> 


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]