Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 07:02:15 +0200
From: Jens Gustedt <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add definition of max_align_t to stddef.h


Am Sonntag, den 04.05.2014, 13:42 +0200 schrieb PaweĊ‚ Dziepak:
> The behavior in GCC 4.9 has changed. _Alignof(long long) now is always
> 4. _Alignof(max_align_t) remains 8 though.

just to be clear, is it that _Alignof(max_align_t) is 8 for their
version of max_align_t or for your version.

Rich is correct, if it would be for your version, this would be a

But if it would be for their version, this would be just a unilateral
decision about the API they have taken, and musl should then mimic
that behavior. The idea behind that might be that they consider that
some special type(s) that are C extensions have "usual allignment".


:: INRIA Nancy Grand Est ::   ::
:: AlGorille ::::::::::::::: office Nancy : +33 383593090   ::
:: ICube :::::::::::::: office Strasbourg : +33 368854536   ::
:: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: gsm France : +33 651400183   ::
:: :::::::::::::::::::: gsm international : +49 15737185122 ::

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)

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.