On 03/23/2015 07:41 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > Ah, I should have looked at what max_align_t actually meant. With these > semantics, the name is a bit confusing. I agree that requiring 64 byte > alignment from malloc does not make much sense. Thanks.
Follow-up question: Can malloc return a pointer which is not aligned to _Alignof (max_align_t)? This happens with most mallocs on x86_64 for sizes of 8 or less, for which these mallocs only provide an alignment of 8. DR445 does not seem to have reached consensus on that point. -- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security
