This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 06/21/2016 03:00 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
MALLOC_ALIGNMENT is potentially larger. malloc/tst-malloc-thread-fail tests for alignment. To my knowledge, it passes on all regularly tested architectures after commit dea39b13e2958a7f0e75b5594a06d97d61cc439f.MALLOC_ALIGNMENT is kind of mapped to the malloc alignment of a psABI. Shouldn't ld.so malloc have the same alignment of libc malloc?
I don't see why. MALLOC_ALIGNMENT has to match both the ABI constraint and the malloc/malloc.c implementation constraint (which requires a minimum alignment of 2 * sizeof (size_t)).
Other mallocs do not have matching implementation constraints, and it is standard practice (in non-glibc mallocs) to lower the alignment for allocations which are smaller in size than _Alignof (max_align_t), although this is not compliant with C11.
Florian
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |