"Robert Jacques" <sandf...@jhu.edu> wrote in message news:op.voeybap626s...@sandford... > On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 00:32:37 -0700, %u <wfunct...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > As per the docs, align behaves in the manner of the companion C++ compile. > DMC only defines align(1) and align(4), so they're the only two that work. > So this isn't a bug per say, but more than one of us has asked for > align(8)/align(16) support. (or at least a compile time warning). But > there's several technical/performance issues with maintaining alignment > different from the underlying OS. I'd also recommend D.learn for questions > like these.
The only issue is with stack variables. There's no reason not to have align(8) and align(16) for members. Heap alignment can be handled with a custom allocator. It's just retarded to not have align(16) for members and yet have support for SSE asm instructions. It's like telling someone yes the car has steering, but you have to use these two pieces of rope because we couldnt work out / afford power steering. The point being you could have put in un-powered steering for now at least.
