From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19640 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2004 06:39:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 19612 invoked by uid 48); 17 Aug 2004 06:39:36 -0000 Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 06:39:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040817063936.19611.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040706091123.16381.zhangjie@magima.com.cn> References: <20040706091123.16381.zhangjie@magima.com.cn> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/16381] [3.3/3.5 Regression] Structure layout bug X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg01628.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-17 06:39 ------- It's my opinion that GCC 3.4.x is correct, and 3.5 is wrong. Jie's suggestion that Quad have alignment 4 does not make sense to me, given the "__attribute__ ((aligned (16)))" on its member "x". The distinction between GCC 3.4 and GCC 3.5 is that GCC 3.4 is treating Base2 as a POD, where as GCC 3.5 is not. I see no reason why a struct containing "__m128" should disqualify a type from being a POD, although clearly that is not specified by the standard. Therefore, I've retargeted this at GCC 3.5. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Known to fail|3.3.4 3.4.0 3.5.0 |3.3.4 3.5.0 Summary|[3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] |[3.3/3.5 Regression] |Structure layout bug |Structure layout bug Target Milestone|3.4.2 |3.5.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16381