On Wednesday 2014-12-17 06:49, H.J. Lu wrote: > Index: gcc-5/changes.html > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-5/changes.html,v > retrieving revision 1.52 > diff -u -p -r1.52 changes.html > --- gcc-5/changes.html 15 Dec 2014 19:55:08 -0000 1.52 > +++ gcc-5/changes.html 17 Dec 2014 14:48:21 -0000 > @@ -444,6 +444,13 @@ void operator delete[] (void *, std::siz > place of the __fentry__ or mcount call, so that a call per function > can be later patched in. This can be used for low overhead tracing or > hot code patching.</li> > + <li> The new <code>-malign-data=</code> option to control how > + GCC aligns variables.
Let's make this "...option controls how..." This is fine with this change and considering the genuine question below. > <code>-malign-data=compat</code> uses > + increased alignment value compatible with GCC 4.8 and earlier, > + <code>-malign-data=abi</code> uses alignment value as specified by > + the psABI, and <code>-malign-data=cacheline</code> uses increased > + alignment value to match the cache line size. > + <code>-malign-data=compat</code> is the default.</li> Here, and in the .texi documentation, would it be appropriate to just say "alignment" instead of "alignment value" throughout, or is there particular reason to say the latter? Gerald
