> Yes, this is OK. Thanks, applied.
> (to be very pedantic, we can assert that MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT>=256 on > x86-64 targets, but well). My head hurts at the thought of x86_64-aout. > I fully agree with Richard's interpretation concerning > BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT meaning - ie in special cases for perofrmance it > definitly makes sense to use higher alignments than > BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT (such as cache line or page alignments), > BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT is what CPU require and runtime must provide when > asked for. Something like this, then? Index: tm.texi =================================================================== --- tm.texi (revision 122271) +++ tm.texi (working copy) @@ -1068,7 +1068,9 @@ Alignment required for a function entry @end defmac @defmac BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT -Biggest alignment that any data type can require on this machine, in bits. +Biggest alignment that any data type can require on this machine, in +bits. Note that this is not the biggest alignment that is supported, +just the biggest alignment that, when violated, may cause a fault. @end defmac @defmac MINIMUM_ATOMIC_ALIGNMENT
