This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: max_align_t definition


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
joseph@codesourcery.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]