aaron.ballman added a comment. In D118804#3303004 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D118804#3303004>, @jyknight wrote:
> In D118804#3302675 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D118804#3302675>, @rsmith wrote: > >> I support this revert. > > Having received enough support, I'll go ahead and commit, and then propose > backport to llvm 14 branch. > > But -- > >> - `malloc` always returns storage whose alignment is at least the largest >> fundamental alignment. > > As has been discussed previously in this review thread, that's not true -- > and the in-practice-falseness of this statement was the trigger for reverting > the change. > > Not only is it not true in practice, it was clarified for C2x such that it's > definitely not true per standard, either (while, before, it was unclear and > could've been read either way). The current wording in C2x 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 alignment > requirement and size less than or equal to the size requested.", see > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2293.htm As the community's WG14 representative, I can confirm this information. We discussed N2293 in Pittsburgh in 2018 (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2375.pdf) and the proposal had unanimous consent from the committee. WG14 is still establishing their new DR process, so the committee had no way to flag this as a defect report that applies retroactively to prior standards, but given the purpose of the paper was to clarify the intent, I think it is reasonable for us to treat it as a defect in all C versions if we wish to do so, not just C2x. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D118804/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D118804 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
