https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
Alexey Salmin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexey.salmin at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #39 from Alexey Salmin ---
Thank you, this patch works for me.
Gives a warning in the attached test case, but still allows to take an address
of a packed struct members when the packed attribute is preserved in the
pointer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #42 from Alexey Salmin ---
Sorry for being unclear.
When I need a pointer to an unaligned type I wrap it in a struct. E.g. a fix
for SIGSEGV from comment#36 would look like this:
struct pair_t {
char c;
__int128_t i;
} __att
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #46 from Alexey Salmin ---
Tested the latest patch, behavior looks very reasonable even in tricky cases.
1) No warning, gcd(12, 8) == 4
struct tuple_t {
char c[12];
__int128_t i;
} __attribute__((packed, align
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alexey.salmin at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following code works well and produces a global read-only symbol:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83271
--- Comment #2 from Alexey Salmin ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> I must say I fail to see usefulness of adding the attribute to the
> definition rather than declaration though.
Here's my case. There's a const bool flag in a st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83271
--- Comment #4 from Alexey Salmin ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> At least there's a simple workaround (adding 'extern' to the definition
> where the attribute).
That's what we do, so this is really a minor bug. Still, I deci
