From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30560 invoked by alias); 18 Jul 2014 15:38:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 30488 invoked by uid 89); 18 Jul 2014 15:38:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:38:03 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6IFc0Qb013201 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 18 Jul 2014 11:38:00 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-27.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.27]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6IFbxD7032339 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 18 Jul 2014 11:37:59 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Mark Wielaard Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] DWARFv5 DW_TAG_aligned_type. References: <1404944457-4500-1-git-send-email-mjw@redhat.com> <20140711144227.GB4888@adacore.com> <1405635556.17759.205.camel@bordewijk.wildebeest.org> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:39:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <1405635556.17759.205.camel@bordewijk.wildebeest.org> (Mark Wielaard's message of "Fri, 18 Jul 2014 00:19:16 +0200") Message-ID: <87tx6evfs9.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2014-07/txt/msg00498.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Wielaard writes: Mark> Or we could say that a producer Mark> is responsible for interpreting the language semantics by making sure Mark> that the "outer" user alignment overrides any other user alignment tags Mark> (so in the C case, the producer would NOT add an extra user alignment Mark> tag, unless it was stricter than any existing ones for the underlying Mark> type). I think my preference is to do the second, make the producer Mark> responsible. What do you think? That certainly seems both simple and clear. Tom