[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 18:23:24 +0000 (UTC)
From: Thorsten Glaser <tg@...bsd.de>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Alignment attribute in headers
Markus Wichmann dixit:
>Am Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 03:50:31PM +0000 schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
>> I haven’t looked at the C11 one.
>
>C11's _Alignas can only raise alignment, not lower it. Alignment
>specifications with a lower number than the field already has are
>ignored.
That’s sensible, and all I want when throwing in extra (mostly
32-bit, but also some 64-bit) alignments there (m68k does not
use “natural” alignment in its ABI but aligns to a max. of 16
bits, which comes from early design; in Debian, we’ll want to
change the ABI for Linux executables, but are not started yet,
but e.g. TOS/MiNT executables including bootloaders need to
stick with that).
>I can't believe the C++ guys screwed up so hard as to make
>lower alignment UB.
I “just” looked at cppreference.com so don’t take this as
definite but someone who has the standard might want to
look into that.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
15:41⎜<Lo-lan-do:#fusionforge> Somebody write a testsuite for helloworld :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
