http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51483
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Schwab <sch...@linux-m68k.org> 2012-01-10 09:24:48 UTC --- > If I understand correctly, you're changing the interface to pass the object > size (Esize) instead of the precision (RM_Size). That is not correct. I'm just restoring previous behaviour. > Right now, we have the assumption that we can derive the Esize from the > RM_Size > rounded up to the alignment. That completely ignores padding. > If necessary, we can pass both Esize and RM_Size, but the current change seems > like it would break other targets. Those targets would have been broken before. Since nobody appeared to complain so far, those targets don't exit.
