rjmccall added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D14980#298754, @rsmith wrote:
> GCC's behavior (`aligned` on a field specifies the alignment of the start of > that field) makes a little more sense to me than Clang's behavior (the type > and alignment of a field specify a flavour of storage unit, and the field > goes in the next such storage unit that it fits into), but both seem > defensible. Are you saying that `aligned` on a bit-field always starts new storage on GCC? > John, are we intentionally deviating from GCC's behaviour here? No. I consider this to be GCC's extension, with which we are required to be ABI-compatible. This is just a bug. http://reviews.llvm.org/D14980 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
