From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7991 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2003 22:07:16 -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 7979 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2003 22:07:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Apr 2003 22:07:15 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA03623; Thu, 10 Apr 03 18:11:22 EDT Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:23:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10304102211.AA03623@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: dje@watson.ibm.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/msg00486.txt.bz2 Yes. 64-bit S/390 requires 2-byte alignment. The alignment can be 2 or anything stricter than 2 for 64-bit S/390. GNU Ada currently is setting USER_ALIGN to 1 for some objects, which is breaking GNU Ada on 64-bit S/390. Actually, it *isn't* setting DECL_USER_ALIGN for any objects and I believe that's correct. It's stor-layout.c that is setting it from TYPE_USER_ALIGN and that seems quite wrong: there is a difference between specifying the alignment of a type and that of an object and DECL_USER_ALIGN means the latter.