On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 09:52:04AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> dropping the alignment means that the padding before the lock member >> vanishes. Consequently, we have just created a silent ABI change in >> application code, which is a big no-no. > > Sure, it would be an ABI change, but how many users would it affect? > >> Since this is PA-RISC, which is essentially dead (neither HPE nor Debian >> ship it anymore), I stand by my suggestion to bump the fundamental alignment > > Or just drop support for a dead arch? > >> instead. Sure, it is a bit inefficient, but this will only affect PA-RISC >> users. It does not even cause work for PA-RISC porters. Conversely, if we >> work on this to come up with a different fix, many more people will be >> affected (because they don't get all the nice things we could work on >> instead), and we may need to maintain a special GCC kludge for the >> alternative solution, impacting GCC developers in particular. > > But sure, bumping malloc alignment is probably easiest. And people who want > performance have better options than to stay on 32-bit PA-RISC anyway.
Or we could do nothing and tell people to ignore the harmless warning. Jason
