public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libfortran/112364] calloc used incorrectly
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2023 08:25:31 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-112364-4-8J6NXxzXBw@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-112364-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112364
Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords| |easyhack
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed| |2023-11-03
--- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #0)
> Note that for the allocated size the order of arguments does not matter, but
> - at least according to my understanding - the alignment requirements for
> the returned memory may depend on the object size being the second argument.
No, per the standard we can assign the result of calloc to T* iff T has a
fundamental alignment requirement, i. e. _Alignof (max_align_t) >= _Alignof
(T). It's not related to the specified size in calloc call.
But anyway in this case the order of arguments is indeed wrong and it should be
fixed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-03 8:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-03 7:53 [Bug libfortran/112364] New: " muecker at gwdg dot de
2023-11-03 8:25 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2023-11-03 9:04 ` [Bug libfortran/112364] " muecker at gwdg dot de
2023-11-03 9:14 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-03 10:06 ` muecker at gwdg dot de
2023-11-03 10:08 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-03 12:11 ` muecker at gwdg dot de
2023-11-03 16:03 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2023-11-03 16:10 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-03 17:06 ` muecker at gwdg dot de
2023-11-03 17:16 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2023-11-03 17:23 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-03 17:27 ` muecker at gwdg dot de
2023-11-06 10:44 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-06 10:58 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-16 22:19 ` peter0x44 at disroot dot org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-112364-4-8J6NXxzXBw@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).