On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 05:03:21PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > > It is to improve performance of string functions on larger chunks of > > > data. x86-64 specify this, for x86 it is optional. I don't think we > > > should end up warning here - it is done only for static variables where > > > the alignment can be higher than what BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT promise. > > > > Higher than BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT? So, maybe we should rename it > > ALMOST_BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT? I'm confused. > > Yes, BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT is supposed to be the biggest alignment the > compiler will ever use.
I thought BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT was the largest alignment that the processor ever requires for any data type. Which is not the same thing, since this is alignment desired for performance. r~
