Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:12:08 -0700 (PDT) From: obrien@freebsd.org To: audit@freebsd.org, obrien@freebsd.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, current@freebsd.org, jhb@freebsd.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: optimization/6627: -fno-align-functions regression from 2.95 Message-ID: <200206272012.g5RKC8PC049239@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
rth said at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-05/msg00989.html he would not raise the priority for 3.1.1. But this is a regression and I hope maybe something can be done about it. Maybe a fix based on a #define one must explicitly turn on when building GCC. I do not see why a fix cannot go in (in some form). If a C++ user asks for an alignment of `1' then give it to them -- since when has C/C++ been about not letting the user shoot their foot off? Or, can't the fix take into account that I am compiling C and not C++? This regression is still causing us problems in FreeBSD's boot code due to the larger size the code produces. I'm sure this could be an issue for some embedded users. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200206272012.g5RKC8PC049239>