From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pinskia@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-yb1-xb30.google.com (mail-yb1-xb30.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b30])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 986C13857C52
 for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 09:29:34 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 986C13857C52
Received: by mail-yb1-xb30.google.com with SMTP id p186so12269278ybg.2
 for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 01:29:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=Q8jxpn8U81BOSDGIdqWNhjKuVlBFdrywKBigHG1mI18=;
 b=sMWiYxNHCEH3GXEyClsCO19SS6e8f/JCngys7c7ZIjotDB8s0ILJ+mwjowFytBGWzL
 ojn2aA//53rUKPjLSLerMCtY2WuMBgjk5oiXTMNrdxdp7hmiFlepraouMcKyT+lU6DMd
 X5mrEG4O7S4m57pF6H3TDT2QFE8acDGFZ6DA0jcygfbPE8uKQOcUB/EWkx8UuHDRnBuU
 lS0flSW0CDturvUC6RhvlXX6CXrz8z/TIGPJhz0ELJ6gf/uKSq4gp4t951dKOu1rdDXf
 XUwlSVS2shMTMT9f6N53fesZ5aj33xbIhCXT0lE4/Nxh7c2x0cAbOiwKLBn8xmdlmStd
 fItA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ag498HIl0ZWIONAp4thsDNScZ+E0pU6yl+hpwpkROw2MuMtik
 HCAxnyEod17S/jy7o1sds/x8ZNmYmNSrwImGA8A=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzNvXewzVC+GXtRA9lzbkkp+LqVoUuimDuPMDblFY3bL1YLoG4H3b0p8nOxbHNsgupc7g8F3KAHAEvGoV5jUfk=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:fa02:: with SMTP id b2mr29308317ybe.382.1613986174173; 
 Mon, 22 Feb 2021 01:29:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <80753cbc54ef69b4fc136f791666197fc8b1f8bb.camel@cyberfiber.eu>
In-Reply-To: <80753cbc54ef69b4fc136f791666197fc8b1f8bb.camel@cyberfiber.eu>
From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 01:29:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+=Sn1njFZ-XZRHJdmjzOyvXvcMXg+oBao=wK8w3RXN_Ji=fLA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: problems with memory allocation and the alignment check
To: "Michael J. Baars" <mjbaars1977.gcc@cyberfiber.eu>
Cc: GCC Mailing List <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,
 DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
 SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc mailing list <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc>,
 <mailto:gcc-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc>,
 <mailto:gcc-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 09:29:35 -0000

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 1:17 AM Michael J. Baars
<mjbaars1977.gcc@cyberfiber.eu> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I just wrote this little program to demonstrate a possible flaw in both malloc and calloc.
>
> If I allocate a the simplest memory region from main(), one out of three optimization flags fail.
> If I allocate the same region from a function, three out of three optimization flags fail.
>
> Does someone know if this really is a flaw, and if so, is it a gcc or a kernel flaw?

There is no flaw.  GCC (kernel, glibc) all assume unaligned accesses
on x86 will not cause an exception.

Thanks,
Andrew

>
> Regards,
> Mischa.