Re: CMSG_SPACE: too clever by half?

[Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost>]

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 06:02:50PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> 
> I think the correct approach would be to have a second macro which gives
> an upper bound on the required space. It doesn't have to be very tight,
> but it has to be ICE.

Unfortunately, code written to a naive (wrong, but understandable!)
interpretation of the standard, though, will not benefit from this.

I think we "should" increase the alignment and make it constant again.
The backwards-compatibility hair would not be too hairy, really, because
the "dynamic" sizing could just return the same size as the static one,
if ever called.

-- 
  Thor Lancelot Simon                                        
tls%panix.com@localhost

  "We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral
   aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others."      - H.L.A. Hart