From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-438249-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 83665 invoked by alias); 11 Oct 2016 18:59:30 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 83655 invoked by uid 89); 11 Oct 2016 18:59:29 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=silently, 8-byte, 8byte, problematic
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 18:59:28 +0000
Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24])	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))	(No client certificate requested)	by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7143490F31;	Tue, 11 Oct 2016 18:59:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from greed.delorie.com (ovpn-116-64.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.64])	by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u9BIxP1x004732	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO);	Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:59:25 -0400
Received: from greed.delorie.com.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])	by greed.delorie.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id u9BIxOfk029221;	Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:59:24 -0400
From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
To: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Cc: dave.anglin@bell.net, bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,        law@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement new hook for max_align_t_align
In-Reply-To: <CADzB+2=XBG7d2Lp8UraKKYVjZzsEvxXM4tgVPN6ORn5ib=ztLQ@mail.gmail.com> (message from Jason Merrill on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:50:58 -0400)
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 18:59:00 -0000
Message-ID: <xneg3mvhir.fsf@greed.delorie.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00768.txt.bz2


Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> writes:
> If PA malloc doesn't actually provide 16-byte alignment, this change
> seems problematic; it will mean any type that wants 16-byte alignment
> will silently get 8-byte alignment instead.

Should such cases be calling memalign (or posix_memalign) instead of
malloc?