From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18085 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2006 15:17:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 18062 invoked by uid 48); 14 Jan 2006 15:17:37 -0000 Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 15:17:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060114151737.18061.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug middle-end/22275] [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] bitfield layout change (regression?) In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "steven at gcc dot gnu dot org" 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 X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg01365.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #19 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-14 15:17 ------- On AMD64, EMPTY_FIELD_BOUNDARY is 64 bits, so if we honnor that for the zero-length bitfield, we get a size of 12 for the struct in the test case in comment #9 (where we apparently expect 8, which is what you get with EMPTY_FIELD_BOUNDARY==32 even on AMD64). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22275