Re: standard memory allocator alignment issue...

Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> On 12 May, 23:08, Eric Sosman <Eric.Sos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Chris Thomasson wrote:
>>> You got it:
>>> [...]
>>> I am trying to come up with somewhat "****table" hack that can attempt
to
>>> determine maximum alignment for integral types across a number of
>>> different compilers.
>>      The difficulties are in enumerating all the integer types
>> (easy in C90, hard in C99)...
> 
> Isn't it actually impossible to enumerate all the integer
> types in C99 ?  The standard allows extended integer
> types so you have no way of knowing whether on some
> platform you have a "hideously long int" which has
> stricter alignment requirements than every standard
> type.

     Well, "impossible" is just a special case of "hard,"
right?  ;-)

     I'd actually written "impossible" and then I backed
off just in case Somebody Way Smarter Than Me came up with
a nifty dodge.  For example, SWSTM might produce a proof
that the alignment of uintmax_t suffices for all other
integers, too.  I don't know of any such proof (even if
I did, the margin of this post would probably be too narrow
to contain it) but SWSTM might come up with something, so
I ducked the issue.

-- 
Eric.Sosman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]