MaskRay added a comment. In D148958#4288782 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D148958#4288782>, @vzakhari wrote:
> In D148958#4288728 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D148958#4288728>, @MaskRay wrote: > >> This is an unnecessary change. The arguments are interchangeable. >> In musl, there are at least 2 places where the parameters could be swapped, >> but I not unsure this warrants a commit. > > Isn't the memory alignment dependent on the element size in general? In this > case it might be a potential correctness issue fix. > I understand that many `calloc` implementations may align them to > works-for-all boundary, but it may still worth be "fixing". No. The two arguments are interchangeable. Neither argument affects the alignment. Use `aligned_alloc` to control alignment. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D148958/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D148958 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
