Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   YingChi Long <me@inclyc.cn>
To:     me@inclyc.cn
Cc:     bp@alien8.de, chang.seok.bae@intel.com,
        dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, david.laight@aculab.com,
        hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        ndesaulniers@google.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        x86@kernel.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] x86/fpu: use _Alignof to avoid UB in TYPE_ALIGN
Date:   Wed, 28 Sep 2022 01:07:02 +0800
Message-Id: <20220927170702.209578-1-me@inclyc.cn>
In-Reply-To: <20220927164411.99297-1-me@inclyc.cn>
References: <20220927164411.99297-1-me@inclyc.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

In LLVM Phab we have discussed difference between using offsetof and _Alignof.

> Technically there's no requirement that they return the same value (the
> structure could insert arbitrary padding, including no padding), so it's
> theoretically possible they return different values. But I can't think of a
> situation in which you'd get a different answer from `TYPE_ALIGN` as you
> would get from `_Alignof`.

Link: https://reviews.llvm.org/D133574#3815253