From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16816 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2003 19:24:55 -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 16809 invoked from network); 23 Apr 2003 19:24:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Apr 2003 19:24:55 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id 48274F2D5F; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:24:55 -0400 (EDT) To: jamie@shareable.org, joern.rennecke@superh.com Subject: Re: On alignment Cc: aph@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, jason@redhat.com, schwab@suse.de Message-Id: <20030423192455.48274F2D5F@nile.gnat.com> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:47:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg01178.txt.bz2 > Well, what about struct bar { double x; int y; double z; } ? > giving it an alignment of 8 doesn't improve things, as one double will > always be misaligned. OTOH it is odd to have a lower alignment for > bar than for foo, even though the start of bar has the same structure > as the entirety of foo. Yes, but so what, just because you can find an example where you can't improve things is no reason not to improve things when you can :-)