From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27234 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2003 21:17:23 -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 27217 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2003 21:17:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO igw2.watson.ibm.com) (129.34.20.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Apr 2003 21:17:23 -0000 Received: from sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com (sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com [9.2.112.57]) by igw2.watson.ibm.com (8.11.7/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h3ALHLQ253986; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:17:21 -0400 Received: from makai.watson.ibm.com (makai.watson.ibm.com [9.2.216.144]) by sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com (8.11.6/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h3ALHLl90180; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:17:21 -0400 Received: from watson.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by makai.watson.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3/09-18-2002) with ESMTP id RAA22974; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:17:21 -0400 Message-Id: <200304102117.RAA22974@makai.watson.ibm.com> To: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu, rth@redhat.com, weigand@immd1.informatik.uni-erlangen.de Subject: Re: DATA_ALIGNMENT vs. DECL_USER_ALIGNMENT In-Reply-To: Message from dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) of "Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:11:24 EDT." <20030410211124.7C70AF2D86@nile.gnat.com> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 21:32:00 -0000 From: David Edelsohn X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00469.txt.bz2 >>>>> Robert Dewar writes: >> 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. Robert> Well the front end must know statically the alignment of any non-primitive Robert> type, so it makes some sense to specify it as having the value that the Robert> front end thinks it has. Interpret "type" as "primitive type" in your nomenclature. As long as the user does not explicitly override the default alignment of the primitive type (probably the natural alignment, or whatever the language or target ABI specifies), the compiler should not need to annotate the GCC type information with an explicit user type. David