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: ix86_data_alignment: bad defaults?

From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
To: rth at redhat dot com
Cc: dj at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, hubicka at ucw dot cz, iant at google dot com
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 20:35:57 EST
Subject: Re: ix86_data_alignment: bad defaults?
References: <200702222340.l1MNeNbC018989@greed.delorie.com> <20070222234930.GE14919@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <200702230033.l1N0XxP2028591@greed.delorie.com> <m31wkhr8h2.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <20070223180612.GB4351@redhat.com>

> I thought BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT was the largest alignment that the
> processor ever requires for any data type.  

That's my understanding of what it was originally *supposed* to be,
though it wouldn't surprise me all that much if it were used in subtly
different ways in some places.

References:
- ix86_data_alignment: bad defaults?
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: ix86_data_alignment: bad defaults?
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: ix86_data_alignment: bad defaults?
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: ix86_data_alignment: bad defaults?
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: ix86_data_alignment: bad defaults?
  - From: Richard Henderson

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