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;
> >> } __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 non-ms-bitfield-layout I'd
> > strongly prefer if we could avoid yet another ABI change for it.
>
> Probably not exactly this case - 2.95, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1 ... all show the same
> behavior. And Kai should have seen regressions, no?
Maybe my memory is too weak, dunno if it was packed,aligned(N) or
aligned(N),packed,
but I remember seeing FAILs in such tests when testing against older
compilers.
By default it tests just current gcc vs. itself, one needs
ALT_CC_UNDER_TEST=gcc ALT_CXX_UNDER_TEST=g++
or so to test against system compiler.
Jakub
