6

I'm looking at the explanation of aligned-alloc(): http://en.cppreference.com/w/c/memory/aligned_alloc

void *aligned_alloc( size_t alignment, size_t size );

"Allocate size bytes of uninitialized storage whose alignment is specified by alignment. The size parameter must be an integral multiple of alignment."

However, the example code uses it like this:

int *p2 = aligned_alloc(1024, 10*sizeof *p2);

10*sizeof *p equals 40, so it's not an integral multiple of 1024.

What do I misunderstand?

Improve this question
9
  • 1
    I think typo: Perhaps it was meant to also have "24" as in int *p2 = aligned_alloc(1024, 1024*sizeof *p2); or int *p2 = aligned_alloc(10, 10*sizeof *p2);? Of course maybe the size of int could be 2,560, but I doubt that. Commented Dec 8, 2016 at 3:44
  • It might have been a typo, but the code compiles and runs fine as is. I'm using GCC 4.9. Commented Dec 8, 2016 at 3:54
  • For what it's worth, cppreference dot com is generally a very bad source for information about C++ and even worse for information about C. It's more like someone's imprecise paraphrase of what the languages say rather than explaining and clarifying their requirements. Commented Dec 8, 2016 at 4:22
  • 1
    @R.. if you find a problem with cppreference's explanations or clarifications, it is a public wiki. The fix is only an edit away, and it will benefit many programmers. Fixing this example only took a minute, and it already had quite a bit more info than 7.22.3.1. Commented Dec 8, 2016 at 14:49
  • @Cubbi: Fixing it is a problem of local vs global optimization; when the resource as a whole is bad, making minor fixes here and there lends to its credibility while leaving in-place heaps of wrong information. SO documentation would probably be a much better place to spend one's time writing. Commented Dec 8, 2016 at 17:04

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
4

Actually, it seems like C11 standard cannot make up its own mind, and keeps changing the requirements: initially it was an undefined behavior, then with DR 460 they changed it to fail and return null pointer, and now it seems like they want to change it to accept any values as arguments: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2072.htm

And compilers seem to not care about those restrictions.

Improve this answer
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

2 Comments

It's really a shame that the standards committee changed it so it's required to fail for SIMD use-cases like allocating a 64B-aligned array of float with a non-multiple-of-16 count. Or for allocating a big buffer aligned to a 2M hugepage boundary. It was the only function with a nice API that returned pointers you could pass to free. It's nice that actual implementations don't follow that stupid design, but it means that portable aligned allocation is still farther from being achievable.
The requirement that the size must be a multiple of alignment is stupid, considering that all the other allocator functions may allocate whatever they want as long as it's greater or equal the requested size. So even if there's a technical reason for the requirement (I'm curious what it is), aligned_alloc can simply round up the function internally. I also think the alignment argument shouldn't be the required alignment directly but rather its base 2 logarithm. That way there'd be no invalid inputs to that function.
1

According to your own reference:

Passing a size which is not an integral multiple of alignment or a alignment which is not valid or not supported by the implementation causes the function to fail and return a null pointer (C11, as published, specified undefined behavior in this case, this was corrected by DR 460).

It's possible a compiler that accepts this following the C11 rules, having not updated for DR 460, and decided "undefined" meant "Works" in this case. Of course, it could also mean "Succeeds, but is not aligned or allocates alignment bytes minimum" too. It's undefined. shrugs

For the example code, it could have been written before that clarification and not aligned with the standard requirements, or there was a typo writing it (as suggested in the comments, it may have been intended to be 1024 * sizeof *p2).

Improve this answer

Comments

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.