------- Comment #31 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-01-18 23:28 ------- Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] bitfield layout change (regression?)
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > ------- Comment #30 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 23:08 > ------- > We should at least avoid introducing a third variant of how we lay out these > nasty zero-sized friends. People actually use them. For example Wine uses > them to enforce compatible alignment and data layout with MS Windows > datastructure. Wine has a bunch of #ifdefs spread around in its sources to > make it work with the pre- and post-GCC 3.4 layout. Adding a third would > drive > those poor people nuts. I agree -- but I don't think we're talking about a third variant. Michael's patch looks to me like it will restore the pre-3.4 behavior, which everyone agrees makes more sense. My issue with respect to maximum_field_alignment doesn't really apply to pre-4.0 toolchains, since they didn't have default structure packing for targets, AFAICT. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22275
