On 09.07.2018 11:32, Martin Husemann wrote: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 11:00:15AM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> According to my understanding, alignment requirement for a type/object >> is implementation defined (6.2.8); however during the process of >> converting types, if the returned pointer is not correctly aligned the >> result is undefined behavior (6.3.2.3 p7). > > My point is: I see no connection in the standard between "correctly aligned" > (in 6.3.2.3 p7) and the implementation defined "Alignment of objects" (as > measured by _Alginof). There are various types of alignments defined in > 6.2.8 but no "correct" alignment. > > Martin > The C11 standard could indeed use consistent wording. In one place "correctly aligned" in other alignment "restrictions" and "requirements". None of these terms is marked as a keyword or term and I read them in the context of the document as the same phenomenon (I haven't found a different interpretation of this in the wild). C++11 specification document uses more consistently "alignment requirement" wording (3.11), however there is other wording in use "proper alignment", "suitable aligned", "aligned appropriately" to describe the same phenomenon in my interpretation.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature