PR45112. See also http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg00283.html
Thanks a lot for info.
If I got the discussion right, it's ok for the definition to use more
strict alignment than the declaration.
Not quite. Any mismatch is user error, and may cause nasal daemons.
Whether this
2010/8/21 Paul Brook p...@codesourcery.com:
I have run into variable alignment issues, which turned out to be
caused by forward declaration w/o the aligned attribute repeated.
Could someone explain this please? If it's a bug to not include the
aligned attribute in the forward declaration,
Hello,
I have run into variable alignment issues, which turned out to be
caused by forward declaration w/o the aligned attribute repeated.
Let me walk you through simple testcases showing different alignments
I see for misaligned on gcc 4.4.4 and 4.5.1.
Common type definition:
struct foo {
2010/8/20 Piotr Jaroszyński p.jaroszyn...@gmail.com:
Let me walk you through simple testcases showing different alignments
I see for misaligned on gcc 4.4.4 and 4.5.1.
Forgot to mention the results are for x86_64.
--
Best Regards
Piotr Jaroszyński
I have run into variable alignment issues, which turned out to be
caused by forward declaration w/o the aligned attribute repeated.
Could someone explain this please? If it's a bug to not include the
aligned attribute in the forward declaration, would it be hard to add
a warning for that?
