2015-03-17 13:36 GMT+01:00 Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com>: > On 03/16/2015 03:22 PM, Kai Tietz wrote: >> >> 2015-03-16 19:07 GMT+01:00 Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com>: >>> >>> If there is an alignment mismatch without user intervention, there is a >>> problem, we can't just ignore it. >>> >>> Where we run into trouble is with array types where the version built >>> earlier has not been laid out yet but the new one has been. I've been >>> trying to deal with that by making sure that we lay out the original type >>> as >>> well, but obviously that isn't working for this case. Why not? >> >> >> Well, TYPE_ALIGN (t) is set to 32, and it differs to TYPE_ALIGN >> (result) (value 8), and TYPE_USER_ALIGN isn't set. >> >>> I suppose we could avoid checking TYPE_ALIGN if neither TYPE_USER_ALIGN >>> nor >>> TYPE_SIZE are set on 't', but checking TYPE_USER_ALIGN isn't enough. >> >> >> For t TYPE_SIZE is set, but it isn't a constant (as it is an variably >> modified type). > > > TYPE_ALIGN should still be correct in that case. So we need to figure out > why result is getting the wrong alignment. > > Jason >
By debugging in build_cplus_array_type I see that type is marked as dependent. This is caused by type-max being an expression non-constant. So we later on don't layout this type. So result isn't a comlete layout type. by callling layout_type on result, alignment fits. Kai
