This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: attribute "unpadded"
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
- Cc: Paul Koning <pkoning at equallogic dot com>, "aoliva at redhat dot com" <aoliva at redhat dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 09:38:50 -0700
- Subject: Re: RFC: attribute "unpadded"
I think Paul has a point here that needs some consideration as far as
the pertubations to the existing type system are concerned.
Well, I won't repeat the arguments Mark himself made in the past
regarding extensions 8-)
There's no point arguing about the specific extension. It is what it
is, warts and all. I will not argue it is pretty.
However, it is the one extension that will naturally express the thing
that the C++ ABI does; that ABI creates types whose sizes are not multiples
of their alignments by ignoring tail padding. If you were to create a
type-theoretic calculus for the ABI, you would need these types.
So, the debate we should be having is one about the user-level feature
of being able to emulate the C++ ABI in other languages. If we want
to be able to do this, we need this extension. If we don't think that's
important, then I'll withdraw the proposal.
Here is what I am going to do at this point: implement the extension,
and use it for myself. I will check it in after GCC 3.3 branches --
unless a maintainer asks me not to do so.
Mark Mitchell firstname.lastname@example.org
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com