On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <ger...@pfeifer.com> wrote: > 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..."
Done. > 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? I don't have a strong opinion on it. Please feel free to improve it. Thanks. -- H.J.
