On Wed, 7 Sep 2016, Florian Weimer wrote: > The existence of such a cut-off constant appears useful, but it's not clear if > it should be tied to the fundamental alignment (especially, as this discussion > shows, the fundamental alignment will be somewhat in flux).
I don't think it's in flux. I think it's very rare for a new basic type to be added that has increased alignment requirements compared to the existing basic types. _Decimal128 was added in GCC 4.3, which increased the requirement on 32-bit x86 (only) (32-bit x86 malloc having been buggy in that regard ever since then); __float128 / _Float128 did not increase the requirement relative to that introduced with _Decimal128. (Obviously if CPLEX part 2 defines vector types that might have larger alignment requirements it must avoid defining them as basic types.) -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
