[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140428101156.GF12324@port70.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:11:56 +0200
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] stddef: Define max_align_t
* Khem Raj <raj.khem@...il.com> [2014-04-27 22:51:34 -0700]:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> >> +typedef struct {
> >> + long long __max_align_ll __attribute__((__aligned__(__alignof__(long long))));
> >> + long double __max_align_ld __attribute__((__aligned__(__alignof__(long double))));
> >> +} max_align_t;
> >> +
> >
> > As far as I can tell, there's no reason to use the attribute here.
> > What's it there for? Also a union would probably be nicer than a
> > struct, but perhaps it doesn't matter.
>
> union does not return correct alignment where as struct did. I just
> tried to match
> what clang also has
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/rL201729
>
nice..
i think i386 abi is non-conforming to the c11 alignment requirements now:
long long has 8 byte alignment, but in a struct/union it has only 4
(this is why the attrs are needed above)
long long x; // _Alignof(x) == 8
struct {long long x;} y; // _Alignof(y.x) == 4
i think the standard requires that all (addressable) long long objects
should have the same alignment (or stricter) than _Alignof(x)
max_align_t is defined to be the "greatest alignment supported in all
contexts", i don't know why it is not just
typedef char max_align_t __attribute__((aligned(__BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT__)));
which gives 16 byte alignment on i386 gcc, i thought it was supported
in all contexts
if gcc and clang went with the same definition we should follow, but
this makes the type less meaningful
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.
