https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69560
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10) > (In reply to David Merillat from comment #8) > > One thing remains. As a result of 52023, C11 _Alignof was "fixed" to return > > the smallest possible alignment, but C++11 was left alone "deliberately", > > although "C++11 will need examining to determine what is right for alignof > > there". I didn't see any such discussion for C++11 or C++14 alignof(), and > > by my reading of the specifications, they are defined almost identically to > > C11 _Alignof. > > See Joseph's explanation at: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg00435.html Which refers to 3.11 [basic.align] p2: The alignment required for a type might be different when it is used as the type of a complete object and when it is used as the type of a subobject.