On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 06:43:03PM +0000, mats petersson wrote: > If the alignment, then surely "SuitableAlignment" should also change? It > "SuitableAlignment" isn't the right thing to use for "largest alignment", > then perhaps a new member is needed, but I thought that "SuitableAlignment" > was for "The alignment you need to ensure that data is aligned correctly.
But such change doesn't help *existing* binaries. We've had such fun in NetBSD with the Unix Domain Socket control message interface before, encoding "maximum alignment" implicitly in the ABI is not fun. That's why I am asking what the future compatibility promises around this interface are. Joerg _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
