From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-343339-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 30832 invoked by alias); 11 Jun 2013 00:44:10 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 30823 invoked by uid 89); 11 Jun 2013 00:44:10 -0000
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 00:44:09 +0000
Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25])	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5B0i7D2021703	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)	for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:44:08 -0400
Received: from greed.delorie.com (ovpn-113-43.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.43])	by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5B0i6U0002925	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);	Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:44:07 -0400
Received: from greed.delorie.com (greed.delorie.com [127.0.0.1])	by greed.delorie.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5B0i68A006168;	Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:44:06 -0400
Received: (from dj@localhost)	by greed.delorie.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id r5B0i5VR006167;	Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:44:05 -0400
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 00:44:00 -0000
Message-Id: <201306110044.r5B0i5VR006167@greed.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
In-reply-to: <20130610154421.GU1493@tucnak.redhat.com> (message from Jakub	Jelinek on Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:44:21 +0200)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] DATA_ALIGNMENT vs. DATA_ABI_ALIGNMENT (PR target/56564)
References: <20130607192540.GH1493@tucnak.redhat.com> <51B245EF.3080602@redhat.com> <20130607211419.GI1493@tucnak.redhat.com> <51B5E80A.2040600@redhat.com> <20130610154421.GU1493@tucnak.redhat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg00551.txt.bz2


> @@ -986,12 +1053,10 @@ align_variable (tree decl, bool dont_out
>  	  if (! DECL_THREAD_LOCAL_P (decl) || const_align <= BITS_PER_WORD)
>  	    align = const_align;
>  	}
> -#endif
>      }
> +#endif

I think this change in get_variable_align() is wrong; it results in
unbalanced braces inside an #ifdef, if the #ifdef body is not included
(i.e. CONSTANT_ALIGNMENT not defined), the compile fails...