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: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: rth at redhat dot com
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 03 21:20:24 EDT
- Subject: 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.