Richard Earnshaw wrote: > On 01/11/17 17:40, James Greenhalgh wrote: >> As far as I understand it, because we have 128-bit types, a malloc of >> anything greater than 16 bytes would require 16-byte alignment. So, assuming >> this macro isn't required to desribe possibly unaligned smaller allocations >> (for example 1 byte allocations), this is OK.
I'm sure one can create structures with 16-byte alignment that are smaller than 16 bytes. For example union of say a char and __int128 empty_array[0] should do it. >> +#define MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENTÂ BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT > I wonder if it would be safer to define this explicitly as the current > value of BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT; then if we ever have to change the latter we > won't get silent breakage. I'll do that for the commit. I used BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT since that is what the Arm port does... Wilco
