Re: STRICT_ALIGNMENT is too strict for m68k

[Jim Wilson <wilson@cygnus.com>]

	@item SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
	Define this macro to be the value 1 if unaligned accesses have a cost
	many times greater than aligned accesses, for example if they are
	emulated in a trap handler.

	Please, let's not repeat the STRICT_ALIGNMENT problem by modifying
	functionality of yet another simple macro in a confusing way.

I think the only thing wrong here is that the documentation for
SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS was poorly written.  It already does what you want
as far as I can tell.  There is no need to change the meaning of it; we
need only correct ambiguities in the documentation for it.

SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS was originally created for targets that did not have
STRICT_ALIGNMENT set, but where we didn't want to emit unaligned loads because
they were too slow.  The documentation was written with this bias.

However, SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS can also be used for targets that do have
STRICT_ALIGNMENT set, in which case defining SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS to zero
will cause gcc to emit unaligned loads, resulting in slower but smaller code.
This case was not considered when the documentation was written, but the
implementation already does this.

Jim