> That's what'll need fixing then. Can I change TYPE_SIZE to TYPE_SIZE_WITH_PADDING then? Because it's not reflecting the type's size any more. Why do we have to round up a type's size anyway? That's a pointless assumption *unless* you're allocating memory space for it, and in that case, you want TYPE_SIZE_UNITS anyway.
> I doubt there are too many places that require changing. I don't doubt it, because I've been fighting these assumptions for years. > > Heck, most of gcc is oblivious to the idea that types might not be > > powers-of-two in size. GCC doesn't even bother with a > > DECL_PRECISION. > > Sure - why would you even need one? Why do we need to have DECL_SIZE_UNITS (the size of the type, rounded up to whole number of bytes) and DECL_SIZE (the size of the type, rounded up to whole number of bytes), yet not have something that says how big the decl *really is* ? A pointer on MSP430 is 20 bits. All the general registers are 20 bits. Not 16, and not 24. 20. There's nothing in a decl that says "I'm 20 bits" and inevitably it ends up being SImode instead of PSImode. > > It seems to work just fine in testing, and I'm trying to make it > > non-fundamental. > > I also think this is not a very good idea. Then please provide a "very good idea" for how to teach gcc about true 20-bit types in a system with 8-bit memory and 16-bit words.
