Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/x86/x86

2018-07-09 Thread Kamil Rytarowski
On 09.07.2018 16:58, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 12:24:15PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> >> The C11 standard could indeed use consistent wording. In one place >> "correctly aligned" in other alignment "restrictions" and >> "requirements". None of these terms is marked

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/x86/x86

2018-07-09 Thread Christos Zoulas
In article <20180709145848.ga21...@panix.com>, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: >On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 12:24:15PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> >> The C11 standard could indeed use consistent wording. In one place >> "correctly aligned" in other alignment "restrictions" and >> "requirements".

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/x86/x86

2018-07-09 Thread Thor Lancelot Simon
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 12:24:15PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > > The C11 standard could indeed use consistent wording. In one place > "correctly aligned" in other alignment "restrictions" and > "requirements". None of these terms is marked as a keyword or term and I > read them in the

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/x86/x86

2018-07-09 Thread Kamil Rytarowski
On 09.07.2018 11:32, Martin Husemann wrote: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 11:00:15AM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> According to my understanding, alignment requirement for a type/object >> is implementation defined (6.2.8); however during the process of >> converting types, if the returned pointer

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/x86/x86

2018-07-09 Thread Martin Husemann
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 11:00:15AM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > According to my understanding, alignment requirement for a type/object > is implementation defined (6.2.8); however during the process of > converting types, if the returned pointer is not correctly aligned the > result is

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/x86/x86

2018-07-09 Thread Kamil Rytarowski
On 09.07.2018 10:09, Martin Husemann wrote: > On Sun, Jul 08, 2018 at 03:30:36PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> Misaligned pointer is explicitly documented as undefined behavior in the >> C standard (C11 6.3.2.3 p7). (In C++ it's basically the same.) > > Yes, but the standard dos not define

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/x86/x86

2018-07-09 Thread Martin Husemann
On Sun, Jul 08, 2018 at 03:30:36PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > Misaligned pointer is explicitly documented as undefined behavior in the > C standard (C11 6.3.2.3 p7). (In C++ it's basically the same.) Yes, but the standard dos not define what a misaligned pointer is (or "correctly aligned").