> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 18:02:51 +0100 > From: "Jan Beulich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >2005-12-01 Hans-Peter Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > * gcc.dg/20041106-1.c, gcc.dg/20030321-1.c, gcc.dg/pr17112-1.c, > > gcc.dg/pr17112-1.c, g++.dg/other/packed1.C, > > g++.dg/other/crash-4.C, g++.dg/ext/packed8.C: Match "attribute > > ignored" warnings when "packing" is the same as the ABI layout. > > While most of these changes appear to be correct, I see a regression on > *-*-netware* (which by default uses packed structures) in > gcc.dg/20030321-1.c, and I believe the warning tested for cannot be > expected (since the code generating the warning tests > > TYPE_ALIGN (TREE_TYPE (*node)) <= BITS_PER_UNIT > > which cannot reasonably be expected to be true for 'long long'. Why not? If you don't get a warning for the attribute being ignored then, your target doesn't really pack structures; maybe we need to split default_packed into variants. > Can this part of the patch therefore be reverted? Uh, no. It works as intended and removing it would cause a regression. On the other hand, FWIW, I think the warning is generally bogus, but I've already mentioned that. brgds, H-P
