From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-71725-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 20879 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2003 21:11:25 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 20845 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2003 21:11:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Apr 2003 21:11:24 -0000
Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338)
	id 7C70AF2D86; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:11:24 -0400 (EDT)
To: dewar@gnat.com, dje@watson.ibm.com
Subject: Re: DATA_ALIGNMENT vs. DECL_USER_ALIGNMENT
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org,
	kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu, rth@redhat.com,
	weigand@immd1.informatik.uni-erlangen.de
Message-Id: <20030410211124.7C70AF2D86@nile.gnat.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 21:32:00 -0000
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00468.txt.bz2

>         Yes, the type can have greater alignment.  However type normally
> does imply a minimum alignment and minimum size.  Specifying user
> alignment for a well-defined type seems redundant.

Well the front end must know statically the alignment of any non-primitive
type, so it makes some sense to specify it as having the value that the
front end thinks it has.