Re: [PATCH] Manual: fix order of arguments of memalign and aligned_alloc

[Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>]

On 1/15/24 03:55, Dennis Brendel wrote:
> On the summary page the order of the function arguments was reversed, but it is
> in correct order in the other places of the manual.

LGTM.

Confirmed PDF manual looks correct.

Andreas, May I please push the manual change?

This looks good to me and would correct the API descriptions.

Reviewed-by: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
 
> BZ #27547
> ---
>  manual/memory.texi | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/manual/memory.texi b/manual/memory.texi
> index 258fdbd3a0..78b657627f 100644
> --- a/manual/memory.texi
> +++ b/manual/memory.texi
> @@ -1502,7 +1502,7 @@ Space}.
>  Allocate a block of @var{size} bytes, starting on a page boundary.
>  @xref{Aligned Memory Blocks}.
>  
> -@item void *aligned_alloc (size_t @var{size}, size_t @var{alignment})
> +@item void *aligned_alloc (size_t @var{alignment}, size_t @var{size})

OK. This is correct, verified by checking the ISO C standard.

>  Allocate a block of @var{size} bytes, starting on an address that is a
>  multiple of @var{alignment}.  @xref{Aligned Memory Blocks}.
>  
> @@ -1510,7 +1510,7 @@ multiple of @var{alignment}.  @xref{Aligned Memory Blocks}.
>  Allocate a block of @var{size} bytes, starting on an address that is a
>  multiple of @var{alignment}.  @xref{Aligned Memory Blocks}.
>  
> -@item void *memalign (size_t @var{size}, size_t @var{boundary})
> +@item void *memalign (size_t @var{boundary}, size_t @var{size})

OK. This is correct, verified against deployed malloc.h and BSD memalign().

>  Allocate a block of @var{size} bytes, starting on an address that is a
>  multiple of @var{boundary}.  @xref{Aligned Memory Blocks}.
>  

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.