[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191215180432.GZ1666@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 13:04:32 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: max_align_t mess on i386
On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 06:51:50PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Rich Felker:
>
> > However, whatever we do with i386, the option of using 8-byte
> > granularity remains open for all the other 32-bit archs, most of which
> > tend to be used with machines far more memory-constrained than i386.
>
> Note that powerpc has a similar issue, but with long double:
>
> <https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6527>
>
> But perhaps musl follows the old powerpc ABI, where double and long
> double are both binary64 (I have not checked, sorry).
One thing we should consider though: since presumably the psABI has
max_align_t as 16-byte alignment on powerpc now, if we increase i386
should we also increase powerpc? Even though there's no type actually
depending on it? This also applies to powerpc64 too, I think, which is
an arch not being affected by time64 change.
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.
