Sender:	rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID:	<3EF8A24D.9BCD6C6F@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:11:09 +0100
From:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.23 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	de,fr
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:	<20030623061004 DOT 0164E33DBBB AT iceage DOT anubex DOT com>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Tim Van Holder wrote:
> 
> > > 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.)
> 
> Below is what the glibc 2.3.2 (Red Hat 8.0) has to say; note that it
> does not say what it does if BOUNDARY is NOT a power of 2.
> I could check the glibc sources if necessary.
[snip]

FWIW it segfaults for me (on glibc 2.1.3) if the boundary is not a power of 2.
I'm not saying that that's desireable behaviour. Maybe it should just fail by
returning NULL in DJGPP.

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]

- Raw text -