From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11976 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2003 21:36:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11958 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2003 21:36:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Apr 2003 21:36:48 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA03203; Thu, 10 Apr 03 17:40:55 EDT Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 21:45:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10304102140.AA03203@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: rth@redhat.com Subject: Re: DATA_ALIGNMENT vs. DECL_USER_ALIGNMENT Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00475.txt.bz2 Maybe. I'm a bit confused as to why *_USER_ALIGN would be set for "most types" though. Seems to me that should only be done if the USER did something specific, like "for x'alignment use N". Because of the requirement that the alignment of most types be *static*. So they cannot be changed from what the front end thinks they are, whether or not they got that way by explicit user action.