From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-381513-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 18388 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2012 18:49:41 -0000
Received: (qmail 18377 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jan 2012 18:49:40 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:49:28 +0000
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/52023] _Alignof (double) yields wrong value on x86
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:12:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Status Component Resolution Severity
Message-ID: <bug-52023-4-SIj7QkosMZ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-52023-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-52023-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg03188.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52023

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
          Component|c                           |target
         Resolution|                            |INVALID
           Severity|major                       |normal

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-27 18:49:01 UTC ---
I don't think this is a bug, the alignment requirements in a struct can be
different from outside of a struct.

On PowerPC-darwin (and powerpc-aix) those testcases will fails also because the
struct alignment is different dependent on the placement of the double.

Summary: Don't depend on the alignment of the field's type but rather the field
itself.