*more* alignment problems

[David Edelsohn]

>>>>> Richard Kenner writes:

> Because all of those bitfield functions were manipulating alignment in
> bytes, the SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS macro expects the alignment to be
> bytes.  The primary question for SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS is whether the
> alignment is less than the natural alignment for the type, usually in
> granularity of bytes, not bits.

Richard> Why does it matter which way it's defined?  I changed the macro in
Richard> rs6000.h to accept bits.

	It does not matter how it is defined and changing all uses is
fine.  expmed.c:store_bit_field() uses the macro, so if there is some
confusion over the units of alignment in the function, it will affect the
call to the macro.

	Actually, the use of SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS() which I implemented
is incomplete because it often uses the alignment of the containing object
and not the effective alignment of the bitfield based on the actual offset
used. 

David