Hello,
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 04:05:17PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000000..e8f1044a36b
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wpadded.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
> > +/* { dg-do compile } */
> > +/* { dg-options "-Wpadded" } */
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * The struct is on single line, because C++ compiler emits the -Wpadded
> > + * warning at the first line of the struct, while the C compiler at the
> > last
> > + * line of the struct definition. This way the test passes on both
> > + */
> > +struct S { __UINT32_TYPE__ i; char c; }; /* { dg-warning "padding struct
> > size to alignment boundary with 3 bytes" } */
> > +
> Note the testcase will fail on some targets where alignment is 1 for
> everything.
> You most likely want the dg-warning to be like it is in gcc.dg/Wpadded.c:
> /* { dg-warning "padding struct size to alignment boundary with 3
> bytes" "" { target { ! default_packed } } } */
>
> You might want the following from the same file too:
> /* -fpack-struct is necessary because the warning expected requires the
> initial
> packing to be larger than 1, which cannot be guaranteed for all targets.
> We won't get a warning anyway if the target has "packed" structure
> layout. */
> /* { dg-options "-Wpadded -fpack-struct=8" } */
> /* { dg-additional-options "-mno-ms-bitfields" { target *-*-mingw* } } */
I added the ! default_packed directive, but I am not sure whether the
-fpack-struct is needed. Could you please provide a name of the particular
target
with such alignment constraints so I can test it?
--
Thank you,
Vit Kabele
