X-Authentication-Warning: ieva01.lanet.lv: pavenis owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:45:06 +0300 (WET)
From: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: egcs-19990602 (gcc-2.95 prerelease) binaries for testing
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990608112824.4197B-100000@is>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.9906081339360.35296-100000@ieva01.lanet.lv>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk



On Tue, 8 Jun 1999, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:
> 
> > We could expect release of gcc-2.95 after not so long time. Therefore
> > I have built 2 June snapshot of egcs for DJGPP and made binaries of 
> > C and C++ compilers are available for testing.
> 
> Some time ago we had a thread here about alignment of data sections in
> DJGPP executables.  As far as I remember, the conclusion was that we
> want to increase the alignment to 32 bytes.  Does this have any
> relation to the compiler (as opposed to Binutils), and if so, does
> this snapshot do the Right Thing?
> 

As far as I tested gcc does not generate any special alignment for data
section other than one needed for particular data type both for DJGPP and 
Linux (I tested egcs-1.1.2 and gcc-2.95 prerelease). Do we want a special
alignment of data section for each object file?

Andris