On Saturday, October 22, 2016 12:00:56 AM Brooks Davis wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:50:02PM +0000, John Baldwin wrote: > > Author: jhb > > Date: Fri Oct 21 23:50:02 2016 > > New Revision: 307756 > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/307756 > > > > Log: > > Define max_align_t for C11. > > > > libc++'s stddef.h includes an existing definition of max_align_t for > > C++11, but it is only defined for C++, not for C. In addition, GCC and > > clang both define an alternate version of max_align_t that uses a > > union of multiple types rather than a plain long double as in libc++. > > This adds a __max_align_t to <sys/_types.h> that matches the GCC and > > clang definition that is mapped to max_align_t in <stddef.h>. > > > > PR: 210890 > > Reviewed by: dim > > MFC after: 1 month > > Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D8194 > > > > Modified: > > head/include/stddef.h > > head/sys/sys/_types.h > > > > Modified: head/include/stddef.h > > ============================================================================== > > --- head/include/stddef.h Fri Oct 21 21:55:50 2016 (r307755) > > +++ head/include/stddef.h Fri Oct 21 23:50:02 2016 (r307756) > > @@ -62,6 +62,14 @@ typedef ___wchar_t wchar_t; > > #endif > > #endif > > > > +#if __STDC_VERSION__ >= 201112L || __cplusplus >= 201103L > > +#ifndef __CLANG_MAX_ALIGN_T_DEFINED > > +typedef __max_align_t max_align_t; > > +#define __CLANG_MAX_ALIGN_T_DEFINED > > +#define __GCC_MAX_ALIGN_T > > +#endif > > +#endif > > + > > #define offsetof(type, member) __offsetof(type, member) > > > > #endif /* _STDDEF_H_ */ > > > > Modified: head/sys/sys/_types.h > > ============================================================================== > > --- head/sys/sys/_types.h Fri Oct 21 21:55:50 2016 (r307755) > > +++ head/sys/sys/_types.h Fri Oct 21 23:50:02 2016 (r307756) > > @@ -100,6 +100,11 @@ typedef __uint_least32_t __char32_t; > > #define _CHAR32_T_DECLARED > > #endif > > > > +typedef struct { > > Should this be union per the commit message?
Dimitry's response is correct of course. I think my brain had "fixed" this when I read it to be a union instead of a struct since a struct seems so obviously wrong. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
