Re: git: 2c709ee70ade - main - libc: handle zero alignment in memalign()

Ed Maste wrote in
 <CAPyFy2AipV4Uvf9G9=DsKYmWBfhTxtyGKO4uQwWFXvwWQ2J5Tw@mail.gmail.com>:
 |On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 at 17:29, Steffen Nurpmeso <steffen@sdaoden.eu> wrote:
 |> Ed Maste wrote in
 |>  <CAPyFy2A-dnbrivwZiFoJv4sYL9qyXvoZX2SK-bcd9pEdf30qQg@mail.gmail.com>:
 |>|On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 20:27, Steffen Nurpmeso <steffen@sdaoden.eu> \
 |>|wrote:
 |>|> Me too.  'Was just thinking of allocators which give back valid
 |>|> but inaccessible memory for 0 bytes so that each access would
 |>|> fault.
 |>|
 |>|The size is not (necessarily) zero though. The alignment requested is.
 |>
 |> I personally would fail EINVAL for 0: something really must be
 |> bogus if you reqest an alignment of 0.  The standard says
 |>
 |>   Upon successful completion, posix_memalign( ) shall return zero;
 |
 |This is not posix_memalign, this is memalign which is provided for
 |glibc compatibility (and which accepts align == 0). This came up only
 |because Valgrind's tests triggered this case.

This is what happens when one mutilates the email quote context.

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)