See http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=23957#23957 for some more alignment macro, including the multi-byte NOPs for padding.
Perhaps it should go into "Important threads" section?

@Quantum:

I agree
[edit]Here another one related to AMD64 http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=4445 [/edit]

2 Tomasz Grysztar:
It actually is a very important subject, but i dont know whether it's an important thread or not.

tomasz: it really should, but also old macro should be there fox completness.

It was in the manual since ages (since 1.02, to be precise) - that's why never thought of putting here.

Why do you think placing 0CCh byte is more efficient than 90h when aligning procs? In such case, what matters is the address in memory of proc, not the preceding bytes. Or am I miising something? Does it really make any difference when changing byte value before the proc itself?

2 Reverend:

I never said it's more efficient. The VC compiler uses int3 to pad procs. Maybe it expects thouse int's to fire the debugger whenever program control transfers to a padding area (because of a serious bug or a missing object).

In fact, I was referring to this quote . But you Quantum may be right with the idea of debugger catching jumps to 0CCh area.

Oooh, but I didn't say it's more efficient, only "it could be used when you align PROCs", and reason is the same that Quantum says.