Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 06:47:46 +0100 From: Markus Wichmann <nullplan@....net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: max_align_t mess on i386 On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 10:19:32AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > The disadvantage of leaving max_align_t alone is that we have to > (continue to) consider _Float128 an unsupported extension type whose > use would be outside the scope of any guarantees we make, and that > would need memalign to use. This is largely viable at present because > it's a fringe thing, but we don't know if that will continue to be > true far in the future. > It wouldn't just be that. Any application making use of SSE vector types would have to use *memalign(). Apparently, there are libraries out there that expect to get a 16byte alignment out of malloc(), or at least that's what the author of dietlibc is alleging here: https://blog.fefe.de/?ts=bac7bb06 Yes, it's German, but Google Translate exists. More importantly though, it is from 2006, and he says he's "hacking about with" a bignum library, and I don't know if he means his own or a public one. In any case, though, the mere existance of SSE was cause enough for that man to change the allocator to return a higher alignment on x86. Maybe one more factor leaning towards the ABI change, right? > Rich Ciao, Markus
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.