Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 00:10:53 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: Khem Raj <raj.khem@...il.com> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] add definition of max_align_t to stddef.h On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 06:02:36PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Paweł Dziepak <pdziepak@...rnos.org> wrote: > >> Is there a bug filed against gcc yet? > > > > The behavior in GCC 4.9 has changed. _Alignof(long long) now is always > > 4. _Alignof(max_align_t) remains 8 though. Because of this, the > > solution I proposed in earlier post doesn't work anymore > > (_Alignof(max_align_t) would be 4 if GCC 4.9 didn't complain that > > _Alignas(long long) reduces alignment of long long which is weird but > > probably doesn't matters much in this discussion) and I looks like the > > only option is to use __attribute__((__aligned__(...))). I don't think > > there is reason for me to send another version of this patch since > > there has already been sent a patch which defines max_align_t in such > > way. > > yes and I think we have to care for few gcc versions gcc 4.9 is pretty > new we should still support older gcc versions. Could you clarify what you mean by this? Why is a union containing long long and long double not sufficient? It should give the correct result on all GCC versions including buggy ones (4 on i386). 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.