From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8830 invoked by alias); 17 Jul 2014 22:25:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 8815 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jul 2014 22:25:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 22:25:11 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6HMP87e017586 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 17 Jul 2014 18:25:08 -0400 Received: from [10.36.116.97] (ovpn-116-97.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.97]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6HMP7bt013215; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 18:25:07 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] DWARFv5 DW_TAG_aligned_type. From: Mark Wielaard To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey In-Reply-To: <1405635556.17759.205.camel@bordewijk.wildebeest.org> References: <1404944457-4500-1-git-send-email-mjw@redhat.com> <20140711144227.GB4888@adacore.com> <1405635556.17759.205.camel@bordewijk.wildebeest.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 22:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <1405635906.17759.210.camel@bordewijk.wildebeest.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-07/txt/msg00486.txt.bz2 Hi Joel, Forgot to ask... On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 00:19 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Fri, 2014-07-11 at 07:42 -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > My only question is regarding the checks for alignments to be stricter > > than the alignment of their base types. Why are they needed? I am asking > > because, in Ada, it is allowed to be specifying an alignment which is > > less strict than the standard alignment. We can ask for byte-aligned > > integers, for instance. Could you post an example Ada source code example so I can test a bit how my gcc and gdb patches interact for an user aligned Ada type? Thanks, Mark