This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: DATA_ALIGNMENT vs. DECL_USER_ALIGNMENT
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: Ulrich Weigand <weigand at immd1 dot informatik dot uni-erlangen dot de>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 16:58:53 -0700
- Subject: Re: DATA_ALIGNMENT vs. DECL_USER_ALIGNMENT
- References: <200304092240.AAA21282@faui11.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 12:40:21AM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> However, the problem remains that on s390, the alignment is not
> in fact 'optional' but a hard requirement. (Looking at the
> various implementations of DATA_ALIGNMENT, it seems that mmix
> also needs this to be handled as required, while for the others
> it is indeed optional.)
I think I'd prefer that we somehow generate an error for
alignments that cannot be supported (for some definition
of cannot; I have trouble understanding why labels can't
be byte aligned on a byte-addressable machine).
As is clear from the Irix problem you quote, the user
might have some real need for a particular alignment,
and forcing something on them may break things. At least
this way we'll fail to compile instead of DTWT.
r~