From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 36E393858D28; Fri,  3 Nov 2023 08:25:31 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 36E393858D28
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1698999931;
	bh=liDcQ/VC7cTh8qqCPLKDRoMuGfz8pv4gEOI1/I78aC8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=XFL/QWrkU4RehuYlRSKZ4viDh/qQJv7voyYExOrryV9/Xz4Brb6M7j40c3bgz7Rnw
	 j00sDM73vPUgsnnxcf6F1MZbYij0e3zzAi8P9Hiv88I3gpIHj8Trtf1sNFGkNw6sjD
	 C3XbUPKHnVwVM/gpx+QaOpnjao6YoNx55xMFz/oA=
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
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libfortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: easyhack
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc bug_status keywords everconfirmed
 cf_reconfirmed_on
Message-ID: <bug-112364-4-8J6NXxzXBw@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-112364-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-112364-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D112364

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 argume=
nt.

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) >=3D _Align=
of
(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 shoul=
d be
fixed.=