PATCH: PR target/61296: Excessive alignment in ix86_data_alignment

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Wednesday 2014-12-17 06:49, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Index: gcc-5/changes.html
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-5/changes.html,v
> retrieving revision 1.52
> diff -u -p -r1.52 changes.html
> --- gcc-5/changes.html	15 Dec 2014 19:55:08 -0000	1.52
> +++ gcc-5/changes.html	17 Dec 2014 14:48:21 -0000
> @@ -444,6 +444,13 @@ void operator delete[] (void *, std::siz
>  	place of the __fentry__ or mcount call, so that a call per function
>  	can be later patched in. This can be used for low overhead tracing or
>  	hot code patching.</li>
> +	<li> The new <code>-malign-data=</code> option to control how
> +	GCC aligns variables.

Let's make this "...option controls how..."

This is fine with this change and considering the genuine question 
below.

>  <code>-malign-data=compat</code> uses
> +	increased alignment value compatible with GCC 4.8 and earlier,
> +	<code>-malign-data=abi</code> uses alignment value as specified by
> +	the psABI, and <code>-malign-data=cacheline</code> uses increased
> +	alignment value to match the cache line size.
> +	<code>-malign-data=compat</code> is the default.</li>

Here, and in the .texi documentation, would it be appropriate to
just say "alignment" instead of "alignment value" throughout, or
is there particular reason to say the latter?

Gerald