On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Florian Weimer wrote: > 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)?
1993 predates most WG14 documents being online, so I don't know what rationale there might be beyond a straight interpretation of the standard text. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
