Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc:     libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>,
        linux-api <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ben Maurer <bmaurer@fb.com>, Dave Watson <davejwatson@fb.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Paul <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH glibc 1/3] glibc: Perform rseq registration at C startup and thread creation (v19)
References: <20200501021439.2456-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
        <87v9kqbzse.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
        <941087675.33347.1590418305398.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
        <87367ovy6k.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
        <108939265.33525.1590428184533.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
        <87lflerhqt.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
        <1701081361.34159.1590503556923.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
        <87ftbmpxqi.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
        <1931644690.34207.1590504804638.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 May 2020 16:57:56 +0200
In-Reply-To: <1931644690.34207.1590504804638.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
        (Mathieu Desnoyers's message of "Tue, 26 May 2020 10:53:24 -0400
        (EDT)")
Message-ID: <877dwypwuj.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

* Mathieu Desnoyers:

>> Like the attribute, it needs to come right after the struct keyword, I
>> think.  (Trailing attributes can be ambiguous, but not in this case.)
>
> Nope. _Alignas really _is_ special :-(
>
> struct _Alignas (16) blah {
>         int a;
> };
>
> p.c:1:8: error: expected =E2=80=98{=E2=80=99 before =E2=80=98_Alignas=E2=
=80=99
>  struct _Alignas (16) blah {

Meh, yet another unnecessary C++ incompatibility.  C does not support
empty structs, so I assume they didn't see the field requirement as a
burden.

> One last thing I'm planning to add in sys/rseq.h to cover acessing the
> rseq_cs pointers with both the UAPI headers and the glibc struct rseq
> declarations:
>
> /* The rseq_cs_ptr macro can be used to access the pointer to the current
>    rseq critical section descriptor.  */
> #ifdef __LP64__
> # define rseq_cs_ptr(rseq) \
>            ((const struct rseq_cs *) (rseq)->rseq_cs.ptr)
> #else /* __LP64__ */
> # define rseq_cs_ptr(rseq) \
>            ((const struct rseq_cs *) (rseq)->rseq_cs.ptr.ptr32)
> #endif /* __LP64__ */
>
> Does it make sense ?

Written this way, it's an aliasing violation.  I don't think it's very
useful.

Thanks,
Florian