On 12/18/05, Dorit Naishlos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 15/12/2005 14:52:27:
>
> > On 12/15/05, Dorit Naishlos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > So, in short - when can we assume that pointer types have the minimum
> > > alignment required by their
Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 15/12/2005 14:52:27:
> On 12/15/05, Dorit Naishlos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So, in short - when can we assume that pointer types have the minimum
> > alignment required by their underlying type?
>
> I think the C standard always guarantees this
On 12/15/05, Dorit Naishlos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, in short - when can we assume that pointer types have the minimum
> alignment required by their underlying type?
I think the C standard always guarantees this. Of course with packed
structs or malicious users this is not always true bu
Given a pointer to type T - when can we assume that the data pointed to is
naturally aligned (aligned on the size of the type T)?
The vectorizer currently works under the assumption that all data is
naturally aligned. At least one place where this may result in generation
of wrong code by t
