From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26890 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2003 20:30:10 -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 26879 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2003 20:30:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Apr 2003 20:30:10 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA10360; Thu, 17 Apr 03 16:34:24 EDT Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 21:41:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10304172034.AA10360@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: aoliva@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/msg00867.txt.bz2 Ok, you got me curious. Would you mind explaining to an Ada-clueless person how come these two cases can possibly be different? In my C-centric view, I really can't see the difference. Code snippets demonstrating the semantic difference would be highly appreciated. You gave one in your previous message: if you specify the alignment of a type, you don't want to see the alignment of the type made more strict since that would affect *fields* of that type. But you don't mind if stand-alone objects of that type were aligned stricter. If you specifically set the alignment of an object, you are presumably doing so because you *don't* want the object to be put at a stricter alignment.