From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14741 invoked by alias); 2 Sep 2004 07:48:24 -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 14728 invoked by alias); 2 Sep 2004 07:48:23 -0000 Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 07:48:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040902074823.14727.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "mark at codesourcery dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040825065523.17180.debian-gcc@lists.debian.org> References: <20040825065523.17180.debian-gcc@lists.debian.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/17180] [3.4 Regression] nearly all g77 tests fail X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00149.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-09-02 07:48 ------- Subject: Re: [3.4 Regression] nearly all g77 tests fail ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: >------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-02 06:08 ------- >I think the patch is not really correct because the pool is used on the host, >not on the target. We probably need something like: > >struct max_alignment { > char c; > union { > HOST_WIDEST_INT i; >#ifdef HAVE_LONG_DOUBLE > long double d; >#else > double d; >#endif > } u; > >#define MAX_ALIGNMENT (offsetof (struct max_alignment, u)) > > Yes, that makes sense to me. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17180