This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 2/2] manual/memory.texi: Bring aligned allocation docs up to date.
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Will Newton <will dot newton at linaro dot org>
- Cc: libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Patch Tracking <patches at linaro dot org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 14:49:42 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] manual/memory.texi: Bring aligned allocation docs up to date.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <527A14B1 dot 5080903 at linaro dot org> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311061257460 dot 9504 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <CANu=Dmi91ba9afYkQjgCc0X3KyiVr0A62kZcOyQNPrtB92+iFA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013, Will Newton wrote:
> On 6 November 2013 12:58, Joseph S. Myers <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Nov 2013, Will Newton wrote:
> >> The current documentation suggests using memalign and valloc which
> >> are now considered obsolete, so suggest using posix_memalign instead.
> > What about C11 aligned_alloc?
> It is currently not documented at all. I could add that as part of
> this patch or as another if you prefer? It is not entirely clear to me
I don't mind, but it does seem unfortunate that so many functions were
added in the past without documentation.
> when one would prefer aligned_alloc over posix_memalign. Maybe
Yes, if you want portability to non-POSIX C11 systems.
Joseph S. Myers