Re: [PATCH] Implement new hook for max_align_t_align

[Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 09:52:04AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> dropping the alignment means that the padding before the lock member
> vanishes.  Consequently, we have just created a silent ABI change in
> application code, which is a big no-no.

Sure, it would be an ABI change, but how many users would it affect?

> Since this is PA-RISC, which is essentially dead (neither HPE nor Debian
> ship it anymore), I stand by my suggestion to bump the fundamental alignment

Or just drop support for a dead arch?

> instead.  Sure, it is a bit inefficient, but this will only affect PA-RISC
> users.  It does not even cause work for PA-RISC porters. Conversely, if we
> work on this to come up with a different fix, many more people will be
> affected (because they don't get all the nice things we could work on
> instead), and we may need to maintain a special GCC kludge for the
> alternative solution, impacting GCC developers in particular.

But sure, bumping malloc alignment is probably easiest.  And people who want
performance have better options than to stay on 32-bit PA-RISC anyway.

	Jakub