X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type;
	bh=RxtYJqPYZgO3oM2bfTan41mo/zV5QnCnPmKZWR0ao9I=;
	b=HPVQEZil10tdxLyYzd1saJcDgMCmI1/dzWbLj7g5HTER330LQ/8XMwaMG4jf8MGElm
	fMcBjoaDynQV2nflgLwH7JuY6EgVtlQ83eKZ/FDR/HHAHWuQo5q+89yjU1y7ekNf/lLk
	zh9e1EdkN1hYKyfTPsUpkHl8XtI5FWp5EHZJudAb4WMIzF2RCAqlne+k2hYT5IoTWgnv
	Ts7Ar4YbSYmEhhKOEOCdXuujXIvkcD9ORaSFdbD8b4NPdaTjFc1cY34cnDvcCX8a/gkk
	rXA59P+rHzobaNEZGS8fN0MHVMRtK1rGn1pk1cvA3MjEA2mBuOmeJ2n62bQ25CuMhPCQ
	qJ6Q==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.42.102.142 with SMTP id i14mr25016644ico.90.1431757535504;
	Fri, 15 May 2015 23:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<CAA2C=vCV7fqr-xjg5K7taLrBXx6Zuv7dB_pfx-AC+9D740mNgA@mail.gmail.com>
References:	<CAA2C=vCgLHdH3BJxastGzUsJzhiRddytiYwB1MP_aaiiVpC4nA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<83k2wcjt8e DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
	<CAA2C=vB-YiGkyx5dJpa=hcBh0O4_NiEKh2tKm5OHyNX3vW7HsQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<83bnhojnwh DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
	<CAA2C=vAEKFUktuYXGN_eYUEY0JuHQgXR_-q-N8xox=7PHPEqqw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<838ucsjnbl DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
	<CAA2C=vAK_T9ixd6YpNrd2LYL80Lau-Dbf+T5vo89AdYXS0WYOw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<83vbfvi3t1 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
	<CAA2C=vAUa61rumTN9fyCDdtdGXzqfzZLdtz4Nw+8gWX-J-x0bg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<5554DF05 DOT 7020707 AT iki DOT fi>
	<CAA2C=vD_NVLdHdqz8RSUeU3VniwrQ85=fn+WD0+pxMbZziuyHg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<55556DFF DOT 8020400 AT iki DOT fi>
	<831tiii8vj DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
	<CAA2C=vA+iQLL5DcPASLq-1=SypW+iXrb_uoFN4fprgyE1m7ogg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<83y4kqgq6s DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
	<CAA2C=vCV7fqr-xjg5K7taLrBXx6Zuv7dB_pfx-AC+9D740mNgA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Date:	Sat, 16 May 2015 09:25:35 +0300
Message-ID:	<CAA2C=vBQZ3Uu3V_PHAjzR9eFshoBCoUtYGYgTjKi4d7guy=Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: bad pragma in dir.h? (and our structrure packing)
From:	"Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com)" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On 5/15/15, Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
[...]
> One thing remains:  IMO, we should either use pack pragmas or the
> pack attribute, not both.  My first instinct is that we remove the only
> appearance of the pack pragma from dir.h:  this way the headers
> are compatible with gcc 2.91.66 (egcs, oldest I can test with). Can
> not test or know compatibility with any older gcc version.
>
> Or: we can remove the packed attributes and use only the pragmas.
>
> Comments?

Got no response, so I just went ahead and removed the pragma from
dir.h. We are now only using pack attributes.

--
O.S.

- Raw text -