This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug middle-end/22275] [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] bitfield layout change (regression?)
- From: "mark at codesourcery dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 18 Jan 2006 23:28:44 -0000
- Subject: [Bug middle-end/22275] [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] bitfield layout change (regression?)
- References: <bug-22275-3760@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #31 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-01-18 23:28 -------
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] bitfield
layout change (regression?)
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Comment #30 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 23:08 -------
> We should at least avoid introducing a third variant of how we lay out these
> nasty zero-sized friends. People actually use them. For example Wine uses
> them to enforce compatible alignment and data layout with MS Windows
> datastructure. Wine has a bunch of #ifdefs spread around in its sources to
> make it work with the pre- and post-GCC 3.4 layout. Adding a third would drive
> those poor people nuts.
I agree -- but I don't think we're talking about a third variant.
Michael's patch looks to me like it will restore the pre-3.4 behavior,
which everyone agrees makes more sense. My issue with respect to
maximum_field_alignment doesn't really apply to pre-4.0 toolchains,
since they didn't have default structure packing for targets, AFAICT.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22275