From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29690 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2003 18:46:25 -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 29580 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2003 18:46:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tomts25-srv.bellnexxia.net) (209.226.175.188) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 18:46:18 -0000 Received: from [192.168.0.3] ([65.93.110.4]) by tomts25-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with ESMTP id <20030325184617.HODW29065.tomts25-srv.bellnexxia.net@[192.168.0.3]>; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:46:17 -0500 From: "Kevin B. Hendricks" To: Jason Merrill Subject: Re: On alignment Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:14:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, aph@redhat.com, Jason Merrill References: <200303251122.13693.kevin.hendricks@sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303251344.59988.kevin.hendricks@sympatico.ca> X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg01556.txt.bz2 Hi, > Sounds like they noticed and worked around this bug. Which makes me more > inclined to go ahead and fix it. Yes they did. Also, this is why Darwin gcc3 alignment (and AIX it seems from David)) which has double aligned to 4 and long long int aligned to 8 throws off some of the OOo alignment tricks as well. Will having long long int aligned to 8 and double aligned to 4 create any problems for gcj if a similar alignment macro is used for gcj given that doubles and long long int are different ? Or am I off in the weeds here in my understanding ... I often get confused by alignment of structures, size of structures, and the alignment and size of their largest member? Kevin