Hi!
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 16:27:39 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 09/13/2016 04:24 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> > But we could define TARGET_ABSOLUTE_BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT on nvptx instead
> > of on x86; is this OK?
>
> That's what I had in mind. It would be good if Thomas or Nathan could
> give t
On 09/13/2016 04:24 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
But we could define TARGET_ABSOLUTE_BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT on nvptx instead
of on x86; is this OK?
That's what I had in mind. It would be good if Thomas or Nathan could
give this patch a spin, I'm not currently really set up for it. But it
looks like a
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 09/12/2016 08:58 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>
>> TARGET_ABSOLUTE_BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT is documented to be the largest
>> alignment possible for any type or variable, and defaults to
>> BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT. But MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT is typically m
On 09/12/2016 08:58 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
TARGET_ABSOLUTE_BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT is documented to be the largest
alignment possible for any type or variable, and defaults to
BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT. But MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT is typically much larger
than BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT, and is documented as the limit f
