From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12374 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2003 03:56:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 12355 invoked by uid 71); 3 Jan 2003 03:56:01 -0000 Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 03:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030103035601.12354.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: target/6522: Incorrect struct offset for unaligned 64-bit fields in debug information Reply-To: Daniel Jacobowitz X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00167.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR target/6522; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nathanael Nerode Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, fred@nextnewgig.com Subject: Re: target/6522: Incorrect struct offset for unaligned 64-bit fields in debug information Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 22:51:48 -0500 Hmm, I missed the patch going by, and the transition to feedback was before the testcase was provided. The problem still exists in HEAD as of a day or two ago, so this is not fixed. [Huh. I didn't realize a 64-bit integer could be misaligned when placed within a struct that didn't specify packedness. This is a property of x86_field_align, in case anyone else gets confused looking at this testcase. I've learned my one thing for today.] On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 01:34:20PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > There was a patch to address this a while back. Can someone confirm that > this is fixed in mainline so we can close the bug (now in feedback for >6 > months)? > > --Nathanael > -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer