[valgrind] [Bug 446754] Improve error codes from alloc functions under memcheck
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=446754 Paul Floyd changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #6 from Paul Floyd --- I pushed the changes, but only for FreeBSD and Solaris. I'll leave the Linux decision to Mark. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 446754] Improve error codes from alloc functions under memcheck
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=446754 --- Comment #1 from Paul Floyd --- On Linux aligned_alloc accepts an alignment of 0 and an alignment of 40 (i.e., not a power of 2). So the man page is wrong. In fact everything that the man page says about errors concerning alignment/size is wrong. Looking here https://elixir.bootlin.com/glibc/latest/source/malloc/malloc.c#L3416 If the alignment is less than MALLOC_ALIGNMENT (which is 16 for i386 and the max(2*sizeof(size_t), sizeof(long double)) on other platforms) then it just calls the malloc implementation, no error. Not in the man page but in the source there is a check that alignment is not over half the max value of size_t. That causes EINVAL. Lastly if the alignment is not a power of 2 it gets bumped up to the next power of 2, no error. There is no check that size is a multiple of alignment. What a nightmare. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 446754] Improve error codes from alloc functions under memcheck
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=446754 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||t...@compton.nu --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes --- I think that's only true for memalign (which the manual page says is obsolete) and aligned_alloc (which appears to be an alias for memalign even the manual page says it has an extra restriction) though, and posix_memalign does enforce power of two and a multiple of sizeof(void *) as the manual page says: https://elixir.bootlin.com/glibc/latest/source/malloc/malloc.c#L5553 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 446754] Improve error codes from alloc functions under memcheck
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=446754 --- Comment #3 from Paul Floyd --- Yes, posix_memalign looks a lot better. For aligned_alloc I need to dig through the jemalloc code (used on FreeBSD). It's much more factorized which makes it fairly hard to follow. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 446754] Improve error codes from alloc functions under memcheck
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=446754 --- Comment #4 from Paul Floyd --- Created attachment 144458 --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=144458&action=edit Updated patch Added as much as possible to the comment and added Solaris. The big question is should I keep the conditon that size % align == 0 ? The man pages seem to say it is not allowed / UB but none complain or set EINVAL. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 446754] Improve error codes from alloc functions under memcheck
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=446754 --- Comment #5 from Paul Floyd --- Also either we need to make the same checks in memalign as in aligned_alloc or else disable the aligned_alloc tests for Linux in the testcase -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
