From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 36430 invoked by alias); 13 Sep 2016 10:42:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 36416 invoked by uid 89); 13 Sep 2016 10:42:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*M:9a67 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 10:42:16 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E2FE8553C for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 10:42:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn1-6-7.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.6.7]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u8DAgCOV001982; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 06:42:13 -0400 Subject: Re: RFC: PATCH to consider MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT for targetm.absolute_biggest_alignment To: Jason Merrill References: Cc: gcc-patches List From: Bernd Schmidt Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 11:03:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg00709.txt.bz2 On 09/12/2016 08:58 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > TARGET_ABSOLUTE_BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT is documented to be the largest > alignment possible for any type or variable, and defaults to > BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT. But MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT is typically much larger > than BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT, and is documented as the limit for __attribute > ((aligned)). Shouldn't it be considered in the default for > absolute_biggest_alignment? But if we make that change, I expect that > your ACCEL_COMPILER streamer-in change would become a no-op. What was > that change intended to accomplish? I'm not finding anything about it > in gcc-patches. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg00003.html Its only purpose is to limit alignments when offloading to a different target. You may be right about having to use MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT; I suppose defining it to 64 on nvptx would still work. Bernd