Rollup merge of #125003 - RalfJung:aligned_alloc, r=cuviper
avoid using aligned_alloc; posix_memalign is better-behaved Also there's no reason why wasi should be different than all the other Unixes here.
This commit is contained in:
commit
c5b17ec9d2
@ -87,21 +87,18 @@ unsafe fn aligned_malloc(layout: &Layout) -> *mut u8 {
|
||||
// /memory/aligned_memory.cc
|
||||
libc::memalign(layout.align(), layout.size()) as *mut u8
|
||||
}
|
||||
} else if #[cfg(target_os = "wasi")] {
|
||||
#[inline]
|
||||
unsafe fn aligned_malloc(layout: &Layout) -> *mut u8 {
|
||||
// C11 aligned_alloc requires that the size be a multiple of the alignment.
|
||||
// Layout already checks that the size rounded up doesn't overflow isize::MAX.
|
||||
let align = layout.align();
|
||||
let size = layout.size().next_multiple_of(align);
|
||||
libc::aligned_alloc(align, size) as *mut u8
|
||||
}
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
#[inline]
|
||||
unsafe fn aligned_malloc(layout: &Layout) -> *mut u8 {
|
||||
let mut out = ptr::null_mut();
|
||||
// posix_memalign requires that the alignment be a multiple of `sizeof(void*)`.
|
||||
// Since these are all powers of 2, we can just use max.
|
||||
// We prefer posix_memalign over aligned_malloc since with aligned_malloc,
|
||||
// implementations are making almost arbitrary choices for which alignments are
|
||||
// "supported", making it hard to use. For instance, some implementations require the
|
||||
// size to be a multiple of the alignment (wasi emmalloc), while others require the
|
||||
// alignment to be at least the pointer size (Illumos, macOS) -- which may or may not be
|
||||
// standards-compliant, but that does not help us.
|
||||
// posix_memalign only has one, clear requirement: that the alignment be a multiple of
|
||||
// `sizeof(void*)`. Since these are all powers of 2, we can just use max.
|
||||
let align = layout.align().max(crate::mem::size_of::<usize>());
|
||||
let ret = libc::posix_memalign(&mut out, align, layout.size());
|
||||
if ret != 0 { ptr::null_mut() } else { out as *mut u8 }
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user