Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 17:27:28 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: salvador <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: .align directives in libc.a
In-Reply-To: <378365EE.208B74E7@inti.gov.ar>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990707172548.2851t-100000@is>
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 Wed, 7 Jul 1999, salvador wrote:

> Nope, binutils assumes the current module starts at address 0 and doesn't know
> anything about the previous. This "address 0" is in fact aligned to an 8 bytes
> boundary. So now suppose you say .balign 16 before the first function and the
> real adress is 00008, now as the binutils thinks this address is 0 will not put
> any padding instructions and you'll end with an 8 bytes aligment and not 16 as
> you asked.

So this means that all the .align directives in the current libc sources 
are useless, right?  And the same goes for the .align directives emitted 
by GCC, for function entry points and labels?