https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #19 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> --- On Tue, 3 Dec 2019, jason at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > Can we please fix this for GCC 10? It's an important compatibility issue, and > becoming more important. Bumping to P1 to raise visibility. Are we taking "this" to mean specifically the issue described in the bug summary, i.e. alignment in structures? (And not anything about adding padding to atomic types, which isn't needed for correctness but might be needed on some platforms for ABI compatibility with the system compilers but is also likely to need changes somewhere to allow assignments from atomic to non-atomic to work properly without e.g. trying to copy the padding to a non-atomic type that doesn't include it - that might also affect stdatomic.h, which generally uses __atomic_* with temporaries of non-atomic type, which thus wouldn't have any such extra padding; maybe the generic __atomic_* would need to have special handling of pointers to different-sized arguments, or something like that.)