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").
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 wha
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 undefine
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
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 context
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". No
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