Message-ID:	<3EF5F855.7D32C992@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:41:25 -0400
From:	CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
Organization:	Ched Research
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: memalign hooks (was: LIBM patch for GCC 3.3 - math changes)
References:	<200306201334 DOT h5KDYMWU012441 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se> <000e01c337aa$7b238800$0100a8c0 AT acp42g> <3EF3E113 DOT 1C8C9C2B AT yahoo DOT com> <9743-Sat21Jun2003123351+0300-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> <3EF449C0 DOT 8C8A0C61 AT yahoo DOT com> <3791-Sun22Jun2003063027+0300-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> <3EF53044 DOT CDEA5BA1 AT yahoo DOT com> <3405-Sun22Jun2003201552+0300-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
> > >
... snip ...
> 
> > I think memalign should also fail for alignment parameter < ALIGN
> > value (i.e. 8 at present).
> 
> IMHO, it should behave in a way that is compatible with other
> implementations.  Could someone please look on their nearest Unix or
> GNU/Linux box and see what does memalign there do for such small
> alignment parameters?  (Sorry, no time to do this myself.)

On reconsidering it will suffice to force the alignment with

   if (alignment < ALIGN) alignment = ALIGN;

after the power of two check.

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com) (cbfalconer AT worldnet DOT att DOT net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!

- Raw text -