------- Comment #47 from matz at suse dot de 2006-02-12 03:59 ------- What do you mean with 6 (as making more sense)? The size of the struct? Anyway, even ignoring that we talk about structs which are packed in various ways (as you rightly noticed) even the old (IMHO more sensible behaviour) fullfills the C standard you quoted. By aligning it to <type> it automatically makes a following bitfield not come to lie in the same unit (a byte usually), though that's obviously not the most strict interpretation of this rule. So it's not that the old behabiour would violate C99.
What strengenths the case to go back actually are programs relieing on that behaviour, _and_ that it's more expressive. With the new behaviour there's no difference between char :0; short :0; int :0; If the user really only want to close the current unit he can write 'char :0'. But if he wants more alignment in a otherwise packed struct he has to play games currently, whereas with the pre-3.4 sematic he could have written 'int:0' (if "int" was his desired alignment for the next field). So, I still stand by my opinion that we should want to go back. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22275
