Re: max_align_t definition

2015-04-09 Thread Joseph Myers
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.) > > >

Re: max_align_t definition

2015-04-09 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 02:36:01PM +0200, 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 stan

Re: max_align_t definition

2015-04-09 Thread Florian Weimer
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

Re: max_align_t definition (was: Re: x86_64: Should the -mavx* options affected __alignof__ (max_align_t)?)

2015-04-09 Thread Joseph Myers
On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Florian Weimer wrote: > If I declare a type with an _Alignas specification, requiring an > alignment which is less than _Alignof (max_align_t), that is a, > fundamental alignment, then I can allocate such an object with malloc. > That is, this code is valid: > > struct S { >