* Alejandro Colomar: >> If you frame your proposal in terms of aligning with traditional >> behavior, you are inviting a discussion what the traditional behavior >> is. But this doesn't really matter. >> >> I'm not sure if your changes to the calloc, reallocarray are sufficient >> text. I assume we want full symmetry of the arguments because the >> argument order in existing programs is not very consistent. This >> requires dropping the requirement that one of the arguments is an object >> size (which rules out zero as a valid argument value). > > No, that doesn't rule it out.
C11 says this in 6.2.6.1p2: | Except for bit-fields, objects are composed of contiguous sequences of | one or more bytes, And in 7.22.3.2p2: | The calloc function allocates space for an array of nmemb objects, | each of whose size is size. I think this requires size to be positive: it denotes an object size, and that is at least 1 because zero-sized objects do not exist according to 6.2.6.1p2. If this is fixed in the current draft, that's fine. Failing with EINVAL for zero in one of the calloc arguments but not the other would be awkard and needlessly break applications. >> From an implementation perspective, we need clarification that the >> allocation functions (except aligned_alloc) may reduce the alignment of >> the returned pointer to a power of two greater or equal to the requested >> size, for allocation sizes that are less than the fundamental alignment. > > I think I shouldn't include that in my proposal, as it's not necessary, > and may hinder it's approval. Martin says it's already there. You just need to make sure it applies to all zero-sized allocations, including zero-member allocations of larger-than-fundamental-arlignment objects with calloc. Thanks, Florian
