From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 286743870927; Tue, 16 Jul 2024 11:21:28 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 286743870927 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1721128888; bh=WhleVtrcdtvSZHd+EmgVNjCaJnTi1MDrryxPD9zfsnk=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=kVu/U7WGvsrmrwNnv3I7gDYNbU4axMI2Bpcu2ginBk5auSxPgGjcYwE7wbQXTM2g5 8x7GHAgfuk/9W7F0VH8TCKEVpawQd1J4vXYb1/4IH5ia/bnckbb90xvuF8ud3pToKb kTurYva2IPhFb39y+bnki2n/ficPklkK+Qxq3MNo= From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/115954] Alignment of _Atomic structs incompatible between GCC and LLVM Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 11:21:27 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ABI X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D115954 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- And I'll note the original JTC1/SC22/WG14 - N2771 Title: C23 Atomics paper mentions "ABI would have been fully determined to be compatible with non-at= omic type, leaving no room to implementations for introducing inconsistencies." = but I can't find where/if this went into the actual standard.=