------- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-09 16:24 ------- I'm not sure what you mean MINIMUM_TYPE_ALIGN should be. A new type field? That would be IMHO an overkill, would enlarge types too much. If it is just a macro, it should be probably MINIMUM_ALIGNMENT, not MINIMUM_TYPE_ALIGN, and take a tree (TYPE or DECL), mode and initial alignment and just return a possibly lower alignment. So pretty much like ix86_local_alignment, except that it would only ever decrease alignment, rather than also increase it. On most targets the macro would just return the third argument.
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40667
