From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net>
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] stddef: Define max_align_t
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:26:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140428132645.GH12324@port70.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1398687764.7944.50.camel@eris.loria.fr>
* Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@inria.fr> [2014-04-28 14:22:44 +0200]:
> Am Montag, den 28.04.2014, 12:11 +0200 schrieb Szabolcs Nagy:
> > i think i386 abi is non-conforming to the c11 alignment requirements now:
> > long long has 8 byte alignment, but in a struct/union it has only 4
> > (this is why the attrs are needed above)
> >
> > long long x; // _Alignof(x) == 8
> > struct {long long x;} y; // _Alignof(y.x) == 4
>
> I don't think that it is non-conforming
>
> _Alignof of a type only tells you on what alignments the programmer
> may place objects of the corresponding type (if he deals with this
> manually) and gives no guarantee what the implementation itself choses
> under all circumstances
>
> this holds especially if a type has "extended alignment", I think
the standard says
"An object type imposes an alignment requirement on every object of that
type: stricter alignment can be requested using the _Alignas keyword."
"The _Alignof operator yields the alignment requirement of its operand type."
to me this means that all long long objects should have the same
alignment requirement and _Alignof should return this consistently
(unless _Alignas imposes further stricter alignment requirements,
but it never gets weaker)
in my example x and y.x are long long objects but have different
alignment requirements
there is no exception here for types with extended alignments or
"alignment support contexts"
> > i think the standard requires that all (addressable) long long objects
> > should have the same alignment (or stricter) than _Alignof(x)
(it seems that _Alignof is specified for objects with register storage
class too, so even non-addressable long longs should have the same
alignment requirement whatever that means)
> > max_align_t is defined to be the "greatest alignment supported in all
> > contexts", i don't know why it is not just
>
> This only concerns "fundamental alignments". Also, this sentence has
> an implicit "minimum" operator that comes from the "in all contexts"
>
> if the alignment restriction is 8 in some context and 4 in others, the
> result is 4 and not 8.
>
> Perhaps all of this can be made consistent on i386 by having
> _Alignof(max_align_t) to be 4 and declare 8 byte and 16 byte aligned
> types as having "extended alignment"
>
no, long long (or any scalar type) cannot be an "over-aligned" type
"A type having an extended alignment requirement is an over-aligned type."
"Every over-aligned type is, or contains, a structure or union type with
a member to which an extended alignment has been applied."
> I am not sure that I remember correctly, but it seems to me that i386
> allows for 4 byte alignment of all types, only that this results in
> suboptimal code
if long long has an alignment requirement of 4 byte then _Alignof should say so
> > typedef char max_align_t __attribute__((aligned(__BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT__)));
> >
> > which gives 16 byte alignment on i386 gcc, i thought it was supported
> > in all contexts
>
> I think this just not necessary and even counter productive.
depends on what is the semantic meaning of max_align_t
currently it means "guaranteed to be supported in all contexts"
> > if gcc and clang went with the same definition we should follow, but
> > this makes the type less meaningful
>
> By looking at the page that you linked to, my impression is that they
> got it wrong. I think basically
>
> typedef union max_align_t max_align_t;
>
> union max_align_t {
> long double a;
> uintmax_t b;
> void* c;
> max_align_t* d;
> };
>
> should do the trick. All other alignments should be considered as
> extended alignments.
the implementation may support greater alignments
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-28 13:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-28 1:43 [PATCH 1/3] bits/socket.h: Define SO_RCVBUFFORCE for mips Khem Raj
2014-04-28 1:43 ` [PATCH 2/3] Add soname to dynamic section Khem Raj
2014-04-28 2:00 ` Rich Felker
2014-04-28 5:02 ` Khem Raj
2014-04-28 5:54 ` Isaac Dunham
2014-04-28 6:00 ` Khem Raj
2014-04-28 6:22 ` Isaac Dunham
2014-04-28 6:32 ` Timo Teras
2014-04-28 7:20 ` Khem Raj
2014-04-28 14:28 ` Rich Felker
2014-04-28 1:43 ` [PATCH 3/3] stddef: Define max_align_t Khem Raj
2014-04-28 2:03 ` Rich Felker
2014-04-28 5:51 ` Khem Raj
2014-04-28 10:11 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2014-04-28 12:22 ` Jens Gustedt
2014-04-28 13:26 ` Szabolcs Nagy [this message]
2014-04-28 13:59 ` Jens Gustedt
2014-04-28 14:14 ` Rich Felker
2014-04-28 14:29 ` [PATCH 1/3] bits/socket.h: Define SO_RCVBUFFORCE for mips Rich Felker
2014-04-28 14:54 ` Khem Raj
2014-04-30 18:48 ` Rich Felker
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140428132645.GH12324@port70.net \
--to=nsz@port70.net \
--cc=musl@lists.openwall.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/musl/
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).