On 04/09/2015 02:31 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > It's C90 DR#075 that requires malloc (1) to return a pointer suitably > aligned for all types (including long double). (That is, all types that > can be defined using C90 standard syntax.) > >> Before C11, this was perfectly conforming. I doubt it was the intention > > No, it was never conforming for malloc (1) to return memory not aligned > for long double.
Why is that so? Is the argument that the result of malloc (1) could be used to store a zero-length array of arbitrarily large objects (such as long double, whose size is almost certainly larger than 1)? -- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security
