This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
one-bit alignment (was Re: [PATCH] Fix for the C++ testcase submitted today)
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Subject: one-bit alignment (was Re: [PATCH] Fix for the C++ testcase submitted today)
- From: Jason Merrill <jason at cygnus dot com>
- Date: 19 Jun 2000 22:06:38 -0700
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <20000502155649.F540@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <u9em7gq3h9.fsf@yorick.cygnus.com> <u966sspz5s.fsf@yorick.cygnus.com> <20000505222827.V540@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <u9aehyk6ea.fsf@yorick.cygnus.com>
>>>>> Jason Merrill <jason@cygnus.com> writes:
>>>>> Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> writes:
>> --- gcc/tree.c.jj Fri May 5 22:09:58 2000
>> +++ gcc/tree.c Fri May 5 22:10:16 2000
>> @@ -1066,7 +1066,7 @@ make_node (code)
>> case 'd':
>> if (code != FUNCTION_DECL)
>> - DECL_ALIGN (t) = 1;
>> + DECL_ALIGN (t) = BITS_PER_UNIT;
>> DECL_IN_SYSTEM_HEADER (t) = in_system_header;
>> DECL_SOURCE_LINE (t) = lineno;
>> DECL_SOURCE_FILE (t) =
> Looks good, but you'll need to make a similar change for types as well, in
> the case where we're copying from a pointer variable.
> I don't understand why we've been giving things one-bit alignment to begin
> with. Can anyone shed some light?
Anyone? Anyone?
Jason