I think this hunk still just shows that the ms-bitfield-code fails to
handle TYPE_PACKED properly. Simply adjusting rli-record_align
does not look like the correct solution to me.
Btw, did you test struct-layout against 4.7 with ms-bitfields as Jakub
noted how to do that?
Ideally this
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2012/12/12 Richard Biener richard.guent...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/12/2012 02:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
That looks wrong. Having both TYPE_PACKED and
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:03:58AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
struct X
{
char c;
short s;
char c2;
short s2;
} __attribute__((packed,aligned(2)));
As struct-layout-1.exp tests show, this is something that was ABI-wise
changed already several times. That said, for
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:03:58AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
struct X
{
char c;
short s;
char c2;
short s2;
} __attribute__((packed,aligned(2)));
As struct-layout-1.exp tests show, this is something that
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:29:47AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:03:58AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
struct X
{
char c;
short s;
char c2;
short s2;
}
2012/12/13 Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:29:47AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:03:58AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
struct X
{
char c;
short s;
char
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2012/12/13 Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:29:47AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:03:58AM
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hello,
This fixes an old regression about ms-structure-layout in combination
with packed-attribute.
ChangeLog
2012-12-11 Kai Tietz
PR c/52991
* stor-layout.c (start_record_layout): Handle
On 12/12/2012 02:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
That looks wrong. Having both TYPE_PACKED and TYPE_ALIGN != BITS_PER_UNIT
is inconsistent, so this part of the patch should not be necessary.
No, that is the only way to give a 4 byte int 2 byte alignment:
use both packed and aligned attributes.
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/12/2012 02:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
That looks wrong. Having both TYPE_PACKED and TYPE_ALIGN != BITS_PER_UNIT
is inconsistent, so this part of the patch should not be necessary.
No, that is the only way to
2012/12/12 Richard Biener richard.guent...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/12/2012 02:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
That looks wrong. Having both TYPE_PACKED and TYPE_ALIGN != BITS_PER_UNIT
is inconsistent, so this part of the patch
Hi,
I added two testcases to this patch. So that we might detect
regressions about this issue later more easily.
2012-12-12 Kai Tietz
PR c/52991
* stor-layout.c (start_record_layout): Handle
packed-attribute for ms-structure-layout.
Hello,
This fixes an old regression about ms-structure-layout in combination
with packed-attribute.
ChangeLog
2012-12-11 Kai Tietz
PR c/52991
* stor-layout.c (start_record_layout): Handle
packed-attribute for ms-structure-layout.
(update_alignment_for_field):
13 matches
Mail list logo
