Re: [PATCH v2] mem-pool: Don't assume uintmax_t is aligned enough for all types

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> So, sizeof(X) does not always equal _Alignof(X), even for primitive
> types, _Alignof need only be a factor of sizeof. The two are the same
> on most architectures, and is a sensible ABI, but the exception is the
> m68k case I was referring to above. On m68k, sizeof(long long) == 8,
> but _Alignof(long long) == 2 (yes this is a real pain point of its ABI;

Ah, thanks.  Having a variant of the above explanation in a comment
next to the "union within a struct" would help future readers from
asking the same question as I asked.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux