JimBob wrote:
"Robert Jacques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:op.voeybap626s...@sandford...
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 00:32:37 -0700, %u <[email protected]> wrote:
As per the docs, align behaves in the manner of the companion C++ compile.
DMC only defines align(1) and align(4), so they're the only two that work.
So this isn't a bug per say, but more than one of us has asked for
align(8)/align(16) support. (or at least a compile time warning). But
there's several technical/performance issues with maintaining alignment
different from the underlying OS. I'd also recommend D.learn for questions
like these.
The only issue is with stack variables. There's no reason not to have
align(8) and align(16) for members. Heap alignment can be handled with a
custom allocator.
It's just retarded to not have align(16) for members and yet have support
for SSE asm instructions.
It's like telling someone yes the car has steering, but you have to use
these two pieces of rope because we couldnt work out / afford power
steering. The point being you could have put in un-powered steering for now
at least.
Actually it's just a bug. It's recently been reported that align(n) is
out by 4 for variables in thread local storage. Please report any other
failures in bugzilla. align(16) should be respected for __gshared
variables, at least.
