On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 01:42:00PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 01:11:04PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
>> >> Alignments are stored in a byte, large alignments don't
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 01:42:00PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 01:11:04PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> >> Alignments are stored in a byte, large alignments don't actually work
> >> nicely. This caps the alignment to 128,
On Nov 12, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 01:11:04PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
>> Alignments are stored in a byte, large alignments don't actually work
>> nicely. This caps the alignment to 128, as most ports would define
>> BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT to be smaller than
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 01:11:04PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> Alignments are stored in a byte, large alignments don't actually work nicely.
> This caps the alignment to 128, as most ports would define BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT
> to be smaller than this. The competing change would to be to make it a
>
Alignments are stored in a byte, large alignments don't actually work nicely.
This caps the alignment to 128, as most ports would define BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT to
be smaller than this. The competing change would to be to make it a short,
but, I'd be happy to punt that until such time as someone act
