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.