asking for __attribute__((aligned()) clarification

[Paul Koning]

> On Aug 19, 2019, at 10:08 AM, Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> 
>> Correct, but note that you can only pack structs and unions, not basic types.
>> there is no way of under-aligning a basic type except by wrapping it in a
>> struct.
> 
> I don't think that's true. In GCC-9 the doc for 'aligned' attribute has been
> significantly revised, and now ends with
> 
>  When used as part of a typedef, the aligned attribute can both increase and
>  decrease alignment, and specifying the packed attribute generates a warning. 
> 
> (but I'm sure defacto behavior of accepting and honoring reduced alignment on
> a typedef'ed scalar type goes way earlier than gcc-9)

Interesting.  It certainly wasn't that way a decade ago.  And for the old code pattern to generate a warning seems like a bad incompatible change.  Honoring reducing alignments is one thing, complaining about packed is not good.

	paul