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.