From:	"Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:58:00 -0500
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: memalign & valloc patch v2
Message-ID:	<3A6042C8.14505.1DC212@localhost>
In-reply-to:	<5137-Sat13Jan2001121228+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
References:	<3A5E1168 DOT 31413 DOT E8B6A2 AT localhost> (snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com)
X-mailer:	Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Speaking for myself, I don't think I understand the problem (not
> surprisingly, since I never looked at this issue close enough).  Could
> you perhaps elaborate a bit more on the tests gcc does in these
> failing cases, and why does it fail?

I've already found the problem. It turns out I was assuming that (aligned 
pointer - malloc'ed pointer) would be a multiple of 8. This assumption worked 
in my testing. But when using gcc, the value above could also be a multiple 
of 4 because the memory addresses returned by malloc could be end in the form 
0x.......8 or 0x.......4. My code wasn't accounting for this.

Mark

- Raw text -