Date:	Wed, 28 Apr 1999 11:52:17 -0400
Message-Id:	<199904281552.LAA00704@envy.delorie.com>
From:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<199904281342.OAA12455@melchard.ee.ucl.ac.uk>
	(cmatraki AT ee DOT ucl DOT ac DOT uk)
Subject:	Re: [dma AT hpesdma DOT fc DOT hp DOT com: Performance Observation]
References:	<199904281342 DOT OAA12455 AT melchard DOT ee DOT ucl DOT ac DOT uk>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> I'm not sure whether 32-byte alignment is the best option, but the waste

8-byte alignment is my vote.  Note that a global alignment is wrong,
because ctor/dtor tables will get corrupted if they're padded.

> Another related question is, what is the guaranteed alignment from malloc?

malloc returns pointers that are guaranteed to be sufficiently aligned
for any use.  Of course, on the ix86, any alignment is "sufficient".
However, djgpp's current malloc aligns to 8-byte boundaries.

- Raw text -