[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140508141158.GH26358@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 10:11:58 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Pawel Dziepak <pdziepak@...rnos.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add definition of max_align_t to stddef.h
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 12:57:22PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > As I see it, we have a choice whether to use the "8" definition on
> > i386 or use the natural definition, which would yield "4" on i386.
> > This is not an ABI issue (it does not affect the ability to use
> > glibc-built object files/binaries/shared libraries with musl, nor the
> > C++ name mangling ABI) but an API issue.
>
> assuming max_align_t does not appear in a function prototype
As long as the union tag and size are the same, it should not matter.
I don't think alignments affect i386 argument passing convention at
all. Certainly the traditional va_arg macro does not account for them;
it just assumes every argument is aligned to 4 bytes.
Rich
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.
