------- Comment #11 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-07-09 16:34 ------- (In reply to comment #10) > 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.
That should work. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40667
