> > PR45112. See also http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg00283.html
>
> Thanks a lot for info.
> If I got the discussion right, it's ok for the definition to use more
> strict alignment than the declaration.
Not quite. Any mismatch is user error, and may cause nasal daemons.
Whether thi
2010/8/21 Paul Brook :
>> I have run into variable alignment issues, which turned out to be
>> caused by forward declaration w/o the aligned attribute repeated.
>
>> Could someone explain this please? If it's a bug to not include the
>> aligned attribute in the forward declaration, would it be hard
> I have run into variable alignment issues, which turned out to be
> caused by forward declaration w/o the aligned attribute repeated.
> Could someone explain this please? If it's a bug to not include the
> aligned attribute in the forward declaration, would it be hard to add
> a warning for that
2010/8/20 Piotr Jaroszyński :
> Let me walk you through simple testcases showing different alignments
> I see for "misaligned" on gcc 4.4.4 and 4.5.1.
Forgot to mention the results are for x86_64.
--
Best Regards
Piotr Jaroszyński
Hello,
I have run into variable alignment issues, which turned out to be
caused by forward declaration w/o the aligned attribute repeated.
Let me walk you through simple testcases showing different alignments
I see for "misaligned" on gcc 4.4.4 and 4.5.1.
Common type definition:
struct foo { cha
