On Tue, 17 Mar 2015, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Hans-Peter Nilsson <h...@bitrange.com> writes: > > > Q: So why not adjust the BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT definition in such > > targets to be at least the natural alignment of supported > > atomic types? > > A: Because it's an ABI change.
I intended that to be included in "bad effects"; "A: Because that unfortunately has bad effects on generated code for all accesses to all sizes now <= BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT." but thanks for being specific (and I didn't remember exactly *what* bad effects it was that I saw when I tried that long ago :) brgds, H-P
