From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25456 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2003 20:47:02 -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 25425 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2003 20:47:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Apr 2003 20:47:01 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id 06378F2CB3; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 16:47:01 -0400 (EDT) To: rth@redhat.com, weigand@immd1.informatik.uni-erlangen.de Subject: Re: DATA_ALIGNMENT vs. DECL_USER_ALIGNMENT Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu Message-Id: <20030410204701.06378F2CB3@nile.gnat.com> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 20:57:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00457.txt.bz2 > > This means that when compiling the C source that references > > the variables, I do not know that they are in fact 1-byte > > aligned. Do you think the backend should be able to cope > > with even this scenario, or would you consider this a > > frontend bug? What does it mean "I do not know that they are in fact 1-byte aligned". All variables (other than bit fields) are 1-byte aligned. Part of the trouble here is difference in terminology between Ada and gcc alignment requirements. This has also caused severe unresolved difficulties when it comes to maximum alignment values.