On 16/09/16 11:56 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16/09/16 11:37 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16/09/16 09:04 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Jason,
OK, one more:
this works just fine on both sparc-sun-solaris2.12 and
i386-pc-solaris2.12.
Once Jonathan's patch to heed aligned_alloc's requirement on size being
a multiple of alignment is in, all is fine on Solaris.
I've got a slightly different fix now.
We only need to make the size a multiple of alignment for
aligned_alloc, however for posix_memalign we need to ensure the
alignment is a multiple of sizeof(void*).
I'm testing this now (but only on x86_64 GNU/Linux where it wasn't
failing anyway).
+ // The value of alignment shall be a power of two multiple of sizeof(void *).
+ if (al < sizeof(void*))
+ al = sizeof(void*);
The code doesn't exactly match the comment. I can't find the
precondition in the standard that says operator new can only be
called on a power of 2... (maybe we can add it if it is really
missing?)
[basic.align] says "Every alignment value shall be a non-negative
integral power of two." So asking operator new for any other value
doesn't make sense, but I can't find a restriction on doing so.
I was assuming we only need to ensure it's possible to use valid
alignments such as align_val_t(2) which are not valid arguments to
posix_memalign. For other values such as align_val_t(15) I was
assuming it's OK for posix_memalign to fail, so we throw bad_alloc.
If that's not the case then we need to round up all alignments that
aren't power of two multiples of sizeof(void*). I'd like to avoid
that.
Would using __builtin_expect (sz == 0, false) make sense? Surely it's
rare to try to allocate zero bytes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2014-03/msg00001.html
gcc already guesses that a test like sz == 0 is usually false (not
with as large a probability as if you use __builtin_expect, but
enough that the generated code is unlikely to differ). But adding
__builtin_expect cannot hurt...
Is the division (by a non-constant denominator) really necessary?
Probably not, but I've asked the committee for clarification what this
function should do when called with an invalid alignment.
Since align has to be a power of 2, x % align should be the same as
x & (align - 1), for instance.
Thanks, if it's UB to call it with alignments that aren't a power of
two then we can do that.
I've committed the patch now, to fix the failures for Solaris. I'll
revisit it when I get clarification from the committee about invalid
alignment arguments.
