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.)
> >
>
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
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
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 {
>
On 04/02/2015 06:45 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> 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 s
