------- Comment #19 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-05 09:14 ------- (In reply to comment #17) > Comment #c16 doesn't make sense. Of course malloc(3) can't be changed to > return > alignment, that would break all programs out there, violate many standards, > etc.
Right now malloc violates the C standard with respect of alignment. I am not saying we should add an alignment argument to malloc but if the standard there is an alignment on the returned value, likewise for operator new. -- Pinski -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36054