From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27103 invoked by alias); 21 Aug 2019 16:50:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 27095 invoked by uid 89); 21 Aug 2019 16:50:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=amonakovisprasru, amonakov@ispras.ru, complaint, HX-Spam-Relays-External:ESMTPA X-HELO: resqmta-po-04v.sys.comcast.net Received: from resqmta-po-04v.sys.comcast.net (HELO resqmta-po-04v.sys.comcast.net) (96.114.154.163) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 16:50:03 +0000 Received: from resomta-po-11v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.235]) by resqmta-po-04v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id 0QxZiyLcHStIY0To9irA2m; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 16:50:01 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=20190202a; t=1566406201; bh=jVv0Z7JF4cFnqPtm2713VReLWzSQ2yWMlwx8OET/tgY=; h=Received:Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:Date: Message-Id:To; b=H89wuJulMGqQH7zuyObjry4InlFd3dBBNkfc7kK2z5hRRrAUGOnxZIGwKrfTrjVUh r1YT8LtP64phI3Oo27FQk5cXFP4Y8SRQeN+RcK3L5BGnFfYXF9LEdjU3nfDKlh5wCb 3ObOmIShUHrAGWasfybLpkT3ypKFQaVu9ccSYWPqUTEs72HTLoj7OVFMYL4V1MRvAk kUk+Nt2dYbFCXqLqUZn5BDKFRN2dp5kz4EvS50aFngbLWmCcyzx6/9G5cOTz0JRi02 8QCMGdfI5HA1XVOAZlq/MijBtq0jLc5AKAbp3WuBpQGwJZbUzyqJqHDUdjv5/yqlhJ RZabtQcUuwIfQ== Received: from pkoning.akdesign.com ([73.60.223.101]) by resomta-po-11v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPA id 0To3ixw7HZ6UG0To5ie0F5; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 16:49:59 +0000 X-Xfinity-VAAS: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrudegfedguddtkecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucevohhmtggrshhtqdftvghsihdpqfgfvfdppffquffrtefokffrnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtddvnecuhfhrohhmpefrrghulhcumfhonhhinhhguceophgruhhlkhhonhhinhhgsegtohhmtggrshhtrdhnvghtqeenucfkphepjeefrdeitddrvddvfedruddtudenucfrrghrrghmpehhvghlohepphhkohhnihhnghdrrghkuggvshhighhnrdgtohhmpdhinhgvthepjeefrdeitddrvddvfedruddtuddpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehprghulhhkohhnihhnghestghomhgtrghsthdrnhgvthdprhgtphhtthhopegrmhhonhgrkhhovhesihhsphhrrghsrdhruhdprhgtphhtthhopehgtggtsehgtggtrdhgnhhurdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=-100;st=legit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) Subject: Re: asking for __attribute__((aligned()) clarification From: Paul Koning In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 16:50:00 -0000 Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1E465204-0887-49CB-8472-196EDE7AAE81@comcast.net> <055f71a6-7b20-eb80-6f0a-d7572c34fa47@arm.com> <0A5DAB14-F153-486B-BA04-6AD500C85E71@comcast.net> To: Alexander Monakov X-SW-Source: 2019-08/txt/msg00173.txt.bz2 > On Aug 21, 2019, at 10:57 AM, Alexander Monakov wrot= e: >=20 > On Wed, 21 Aug 2019, Paul Koning wrote: >=20 >> I agree, but if the new approach generates a warning for code that was w= ritten >> to the old rules, that would be unfortunate. >=20 > FWIW I don't know which GCC versions accepted 'packed' on a scalar type. That wasn't what I meant; I was talking about the packed and aligned attrib= utes on struct members. I thought you were saying that ((packed,aligned(2)= )) is now a warning. That doesn't appear to be the case, though; it's acce= pted without complaint as it always was. paul