glibc 2.21 - Machine maintainers, please test your machines.

[H.J. Lu]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> wrote:
> Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> I agree we change the ABI.  Just to clarify though, your concern is thus
>> specifically due to ABI changes of sem_t and what they would do in user
>> programs (e.g., if a sem_t is part of another struct whose alignment
>> changes in return) -- and not regarding how glibc code could fail if
>> presented with a non-8B-aligned sem_t?
>
> Both can fail.  Just because it doesn't fail today doesn't mean it won't
> bite you in the future.
>

The problem is

struct foo
{
  int foo;
  semt_t sem;
  int bar;
}

sem/bar have different offsets and struct foo has different sizes when
alignment of sem_t is is changed.  I withdrew my change to sem_t.

-- 
H.J.