[1/2] doc: document max_align_t effect on ABI

Message ID 20260315203255.123865-2-eggert@cs.ucla.edu (mailing list archive)
State Under Review
Delegated to: DJ Delorie
Headers
Series document improvements for max_align_t, intmax_t |

Checks

Context Check Description
redhat-pt-bot/TryBot-apply_patch success Patch applied to master at the time it was sent
linaro-tcwg-bot/tcwg_glibc_build--master-aarch64 success Build passed
linaro-tcwg-bot/tcwg_glibc_check--master-aarch64 success Test passed
linaro-tcwg-bot/tcwg_glibc_build--master-arm success Build passed
linaro-tcwg-bot/tcwg_glibc_check--master-arm success Test passed

Commit Message

Paul Eggert March 15, 2026, 8:32 p.m. UTC
  * manual/lang.texi (Important Data Types): Say that ABI changes if
max_align_t changes.
---
 manual/lang.texi | 8 +++++++-
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
  

Comments

DJ Delorie March 18, 2026, 1:44 a.m. UTC | #1
Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> writes:
> -@end deftp

Elsewhere in the manual, it seems that the rule is that text defining
the type goes inside the @deftp, and text describing how to use it goes
outside it.  Since @deftp text is indented (in pdf at least), we should
be consistent here.  See the first page or so of the Input/Output on
Streams chapter.  However, given the rest of the text in this section, I
don't think it matters which way you choose.

> +Code that uses @code{max_align_t} should take into account the
> +variable alignment of the type.

This is a slightly confusing wording, but only because we don't think of
types being aligned, just the objects of that type being aligned, and
"variable" could mean something different than "changing".  A type
imposes an alignment, it doesn't "have" one because a type doesn't
occupy memory.

Perhaps "should not rely on its alignment being constant for any given
platform." ?

> +For example, it is unwise for a public interface to rely on @code{max_align_t},
> +as the interface's ABI can change if a different compiler defines
> +@code{max_align_t} differently.
> +

This part is fine.

I don't feel strongly enough about any of the above to hold this back
as-is though, if you don't feel like changing it.

Reviewed-by: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
  

Patch

diff --git a/manual/lang.texi b/manual/lang.texi
index 28e7de2b2c..5f6f74ebb9 100644
--- a/manual/lang.texi
+++ b/manual/lang.texi
@@ -592,15 +592,21 @@  i.e., the greatest alignment needed by standard types.
 Code can use @code{alignof (max_align_t)} when calculating space
 needed for arbitrary collections of objects, so long as the objects'
 types have a fundamental alignment and lack stricter alignment specifiers.
-@end deftp
 
 In @theglibc{}, the value of @code{alignof (max_align_t)} is 16 on
 most architectures.  However, it is 8 on 32-bit architectures that do
 not require 16-byte alignment from @code{malloc} to support predefined
 types.
 
+Code that uses @code{max_align_t} should take into account the
+variable alignment of the type.
+For example, it is unwise for a public interface to rely on @code{max_align_t},
+as the interface's ABI can change if a different compiler defines
+@code{max_align_t} differently.
+
 @strong{Compatibility Note:} The C11 standard introduced @code{max_align_t};
 older compilers may lack the type.
+@end deftp
 
 @node Data Type Measurements
 @section Data Type Measurements