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: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- Cc: aoliva at redhat dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 17:13:57 -0700
- Subject: Re: DATA_ALIGNMENT vs. DECL_USER_ALIGNMENT
- References: <10304172034.AA10360@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 04:34:24PM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
> But you don't mind if stand-alone objects of that type were
> aligned stricter.
You might. It depends on what you're doing with that object.
Perhaps it's been put into a special section and so smooshed
into an array created at link time. Indeed, that's *exactly*
the case that caused us to respect USER_ALIGN in varasm.c at
all costs.
The fact of the matter is that this field is being overloaded
for two meanings:
(1) The user REALLY DID set the alignment, and expects it to
be honored exactly as stated, and
(2) The Ada front end is going about honoring Ada language
semantics and doesn't want alignment increased in specific
situations wrt types, but doesn't mind it being increased
in other situations wrt objects.
r~