* Carlos O'Donell:

>> Yes, and for the warning to go away, GCC's MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT needs
>> to be increased as well, I think.
> This is not required.

Strictly speaking, that's true.

> The __attribute__((__aligned__(16))); is not required for pthread locks
> to work correctly, it is simply there to ensure structure padding and
> layout matches the pre-NPTL ABI to ensure we don't break ABI.
> In the original Linuxthreads code there was indeed a singular lock word
> that needed 16-byte alignment because the hppa 'load and clear word'
> atomic operation needed that alignment.
> In NPTL the alignment restrictions are lifted and we use a light-weight
> kernel helper (like ARM and m68k) which does compare-and-swap atomically
> using kernel-side locks (synchronized with futex operations in the
> kernel).
> So the alignment is only needed for structure layout.
> Malloc can return word aligned memory for a pthread_mutex_t and it would
> work just fine.

There is a slight risk that subsequent members will not sufficient
alignment if such an alignment was requested explicitly by the

> The broader question is: How do we get rid of the warning?

We could add a “please align inside struct, but do not increase the
top-most struct alignment” feature to GCC if it does not have one yet.

But I don't think it's worth this effort to do this just for HPPA.

We should bump MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT and max_align_t and be done with
it.  I don't see anything else worth doing which also gets rid of the
warning.  It's also fairly simple conceptually and carries less risk
of breaking in unexpected ways later.

Reply via email to