--- Comment #8 from mcvick_e at iname dot com 2006-08-22 16:42 ---
To try to be more helpful here, after doing a large amount of investigation
into the signature of this problem, it's been observed that the GNU compiler
simply defines (or appears to define) a bitfield (regardless of
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-17 18:04 ---
Can you quote the ABI document that says they have the same alignment?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from mcvick_e at iname dot com 2006-08-17 22:17 ---
Are you telling me that if I put two of those structures side by side in memory
that GNU will mis-align them even though I pass the flag -mstrict-align? That
couldn't possibly be since the align flag states to use
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-17 22:19 ---
-mstrict-align does not do what you think it does. What it does is say the
alignment requirements for loads/stores cannot be violated.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28763
--- Comment #5 from mcvick_e at iname dot com 2006-08-17 22:28 ---
Additional information, if you insist on having an ABI then please go to this
link and look at pages 3-8 and 3-9. It states that bitfields have the same
alignment restrictions as their base types (int for int) (short
--- Comment #6 from mcvick_e at iname dot com 2006-08-17 22:35 ---
The spec also has multiple examples of big versus little endian layouts and how
they map in memory and what their alignment is.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28763
--- Comment #7 from mcvick_e at iname dot com 2006-08-18 00:03 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
-mstrict-align does not do what you think it does. What it does is say the
alignment requirements for loads/stores cannot be violated.
That's fine for the -mstrict-align, however as I stated
