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: DATA_ALIGNMENT vs. DECL_USER_ALIGNMENT


    The fact of the matter is that this field is being overloaded
    for two meanings:

No, it's being overloaded for two *other* meanings:

(1) The user really did set the alignment of the object.
(2) The user really did set the alignment of the object's *type*.

      The user REALLY DID set the alignment, and expects it to
      be honored exactly as stated

Yes, but there's a fundamental ambiguity here.  If the user says he
wants an object aligned at a 4-byte boundary, is it an error to align
it to a page boundary?  Is there some requirement that we ensure that
every such object is at an address that has *exactly* the number of
low-order zeros as requested by the alignment and no more?

What, precisely, does "honored" mean here?

I'll have more to say about this, but tomorrow morning when I'm fresher.


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