glibc 2.21 - Machine maintainers, please test your machines.

[Torvald Riegel]

On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 17:18 +0100, Andreas Schwab 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.

IMHO this conversation would benefit from some more verbosity in your
replies.  It seems you and HJ disagree, so the only way I see to solve
this is to actually talk about it.

Anyway, I'll let you and HJ hash this out.  In the end, this is
primarily about whether x32's sem_t uses a bigger alignment or not.