Re:Unsafe Zig Is Safer Than Unsafe Rust
by bjourne on Wednesday January 24, 2018 @07:20PM
(#16227637)
On 64bit Linux, stack frames are always aligned at 16 byte boundaries. The first 8 bytes of the frame contains the return address then there are 8 bytes of padding and then comes the stack allocations.
I think the example is poorly constructed, because it is inconceivable that the address to the start of an array would not be aligned sizeof(int*) bytes.
Re:Unsafe Zig Is Safer Than Unsafe Rust
by dbaupp on Wednesday January 24, 2018 @07:31PM
(#16227702)
The example is illustrative enough: all the array needs to be misaligned in practice is a small value on the stack near it, e.g. if the Rust code has `let x: u8 = 1;` inserted after the array (or, I imagine, `uint8_t x = 1;` in the C, etc.), then the array's address is odd.
Re:Unsafe Zig Is Safer Than Unsafe Rust
by bjourne on Wednesday January 24, 2018 @07:55PM
(#16227835)
Why would it be? I tried it with msvc and it always manages to put arrays in stack frames at 8 byte boundaries. I can't see why a compiler would not do that.
Re:Unsafe Zig Is Safer Than Unsafe Rust
by viperscape on Friday January 26, 2018 @10:07AM
(#16239665)
Also curious, would one ever do this in C? I understand the need in Rust and Zig, but in C is this usual?
It appears that the array is aligned with the minimum ABI requirement 16 by default? May be a note of this in the standard, can't recall of the top of my head.
We can also explicitly specify the alignment required in C11. Results in the following IR.