From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-72371-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 9662 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2003 01:24:36 -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 9649 invoked from network); 23 Apr 2003 01:24:36 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Apr 2003 01:24:36 -0000
Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338)
	id C2328F2D45; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 21:24:35 -0400 (EDT)
To: aoliva@redhat.com, kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu
Subject: Re: DATA_ALIGNMENT vs. DECL_USER_ALIGNMENT
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Message-Id: <20030423012435.C2328F2D45@nile.gnat.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 03:29:00 -0000
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg01114.txt.bz2

> So the question is when to supress the an optional increase for
> objects and I claim the only time should be if there is an alignment
> specified *for a particular object*.

seems reasonable to me ...