This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: DATA_ALIGNMENT vs. DECL_USER_ALIGNMENT
- From: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- To: dewar at gnat dot com, dje at watson dot ibm dot com
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu, rth at redhat dot com,weigand at immd1 dot informatik dot uni-erlangen dot de
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:56:27 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: DATA_ALIGNMENT vs. DECL_USER_ALIGNMENT
> Interpret "type" as "primitive type" in your nomenclature. As
> long as the user does not explicitly override the default alignment of the
> primitive type (probably the natural alignment, or whatever the language
> or target ABI specifies), the compiler should not need to annotate the GCC
> type information with an explicit user type.
Wel then there is some other funny behavior, which is that it is widely
understood that provinding a confirming rep clause shoud have no effect
at all on the generated code.
So if it should make no difference to the code whether a confirming rep
clause is given, how can it be possbiule in some cases that it should be
omitted.