From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9942 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2003 16:26:29 -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 9930 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2003 16:26:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Apr 2003 16:26:29 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id 5CF1DF2CBA; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:26:29 -0400 (EDT) To: aph@redhat.com, jason@redhat.com Subject: Re: On alignment Cc: dewar@gnat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, nathan@codesourcery.com Message-Id: <20030422162629.5CF1DF2CBA@nile.gnat.com> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:19:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg01072.txt.bz2 > It's the same in C. Weird or not, that's what the SVR4 psABI says, so > that's what we do. Of course this is an excellent example of a case where for stand alone objects of the type, the alignment should be increased to get efficient execution. This increase for stand alone objects of course is compatibole with the SVR4 ABI.