https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
Peter Damianov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter0x44 at disroot dot org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:17df6ddcf11aef6d200305d35641a7deb2f430e1
commit r14-5148-g17df6ddcf11aef6d200305d35641a7deb2f430e1
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
--- Comment #11 from Martin Uecker ---
This is one possible way to read it. But as written, I think one can easily
understand it the other way, because calloc never mentions requested total size
but only about space for an array of objects of s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The wording refers to "the size requested", which I consider to be the
product of two arguments in the case of calloc - not a particular argument
to calloc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
--- Comment #9 from Martin Uecker ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #7)
> I believe "size requested" refers to the product nmemb * size in the case
> of calloc, so getting the arguments the "wrong" way round does not affect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I believe "size requested" refers to the product nmemb * size in the case
of calloc, so getting the arguments the "wrong" way round does not affect
the required alignment. The point of th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
--- Comment #6 from Martin Uecker ---
For reference, this is were the revised wording in C comes. This is
intentional. https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2293.htm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #4)
> Interesting. But independently of alignment, the description of calloc makes
> it clear that it allocates an array of nmemb objects of size x. So in any
> case I th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
--- Comment #4 from Martin Uecker ---
Interesting. But independently of alignment, the description of calloc makes it
clear that it allocates an array of nmemb objects of size x. So in any case I
think the code should be changed accordingly, wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #2)
> I don't think this is correct. The requirement is "The pointer returned if
> the allocation succeeds is suitably aligned so that it may be assigned to a
> pointer t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
--- Comment #2 from Martin Uecker ---
I don't think this is correct. The requirement is "The pointer returned if the
allocation succeeds is suitably aligned so that it may be assigned to a pointer
to any type of object with a fundamental align
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
Statu
15 matches
Mail list logo
