On 22/11/2023 14:26, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Side remark:
-#define MEMSPACE_CALLOC(MEMSPACE, SIZE) \ - calloc (1,
(((void)(MEMSPACE), (SIZE))))
This fits a bit more to previous patch, but I wonder whether that should
use (MEMSPACE, NMEMB, SIZE) instead - to fit to the actual calloc
arguments.
I think the main/only difference between SIZE and NMEMB and SIZE is that
"If the multiplication of nmemb and size would result in integer overflow,
then calloc() returns an error." (Linux manpage)
However, while this wording seems to be neither in POSIX nor in the OpenMP
spec. There was some alignment discussion at https://gcc.gnu.org/PR112364
regarding whether C (since C23) has a different alignment for
calloc(1, n) vs. calloc(n,1) but Joseph believes it doen't.
Thus, this is more bikesheding than making a real difference.
[Addressing this point separately to the others....]
The size has already been calculated, aligned, and padded, before we get
to calling MEMSPACE_CALLOC. I don't think we can revert to "nmemb, size"
without breaking that.
Andrew
