[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877dwypwuj.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 16:57:56 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>, Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paul <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH glibc 1/3] glibc: Perform rseq registration at C startup and thread creation (v19)
* Mathieu Desnoyers:
>> Like the attribute, it needs to come right after the struct keyword, I
>> think. (Trailing attributes can be ambiguous, but not in this case.)
>
> Nope. _Alignas really _is_ special :-(
>
> struct _Alignas (16) blah {
> int a;
> };
>
> p.c:1:8: error: expected ‘{’ before ‘_Alignas’
> struct _Alignas (16) blah {
Meh, yet another unnecessary C++ incompatibility. C does not support
empty structs, so I assume they didn't see the field requirement as a
burden.
> One last thing I'm planning to add in sys/rseq.h to cover acessing the
> rseq_cs pointers with both the UAPI headers and the glibc struct rseq
> declarations:
>
> /* The rseq_cs_ptr macro can be used to access the pointer to the current
> rseq critical section descriptor. */
> #ifdef __LP64__
> # define rseq_cs_ptr(rseq) \
> ((const struct rseq_cs *) (rseq)->rseq_cs.ptr)
> #else /* __LP64__ */
> # define rseq_cs_ptr(rseq) \
> ((const struct rseq_cs *) (rseq)->rseq_cs.ptr.ptr32)
> #endif /* __LP64__ */
>
> Does it make sense ?
Written this way, it's an aliasing violation. I don't think it's very
useful.
Thanks,
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists