1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/PR113258
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=f50f2efae9fb0965d8ccdb62cfdb698336d5a933
From d17158058fee187e7efb918145c87bdfff9cbfa3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 15:22:46 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] libstdc++: Prefer posix_memalign for aligned-new [PR113258]
As described in PR libstdc++/113258 there are old versions of tcmalloc
which replace malloc and related APIs, but do not repalce aligned_alloc
because it didn't exist at the time they were released. This means that
when operator new(size_t, align_val_t) uses aligned_alloc to obtain
memory, it comes from libc's aligned_alloc not from tcmalloc. But when
operator delete(void*, size_t, align_val_t) uses free to deallocate the
memory, that goes to tcmalloc's replacement version of free, which
doesn't know how to free it.
If we give preference to the older posix_memalign instead of
aligned_alloc then we're more likely to use a function that will be
compatible with the replacement version of free. Because posix_memalign
has been around for longer, it's more likely that old third-party malloc
replacements will also replace posix_memalign alongside malloc and free.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
PR libstdc++/113258
* libsupc++/new_opa.cc: Prefer to use posix_memalign if
available.
(cherry picked from commit f50f2efae9fb0965d8ccdb62cfdb698336d5a933)
---
libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/new_opa.cc | 26 +++++++++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/new_opa.cc b/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/new_opa.cc
index 6eb136fa8fc7..29767c1cfaad 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/new_opa.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/new_opa.cc
@@ -46,12 +46,12 @@ using std::bad_alloc;
using std::size_t;
extern "C"
{
-# if _GLIBCXX_HAVE_ALIGNED_ALLOC
+# if _GLIBCXX_HAVE_POSIX_MEMALIGN
+ void *posix_memalign(void **, size_t alignment, size_t size);
+# elif _GLIBCXX_HAVE_ALIGNED_ALLOC
void *aligned_alloc(size_t alignment, size_t size);
# elif _GLIBCXX_HAVE__ALIGNED_MALLOC
void *_aligned_malloc(size_t size, size_t alignment);
-# elif _GLIBCXX_HAVE_POSIX_MEMALIGN
- void *posix_memalign(void **, size_t alignment, size_t size);
# elif _GLIBCXX_HAVE_MEMALIGN
void *memalign(size_t alignment, size_t size);
# else
@@ -63,13 +63,10 @@ extern "C"
#endif
namespace __gnu_cxx {
-#if _GLIBCXX_HAVE_ALIGNED_ALLOC
-using ::aligned_alloc;
-#elif _GLIBCXX_HAVE__ALIGNED_MALLOC
-static inline void*
-aligned_alloc (std::size_t al, std::size_t sz)
-{ return _aligned_malloc(sz, al); }
-#elif _GLIBCXX_HAVE_POSIX_MEMALIGN
+// Prefer posix_memalign if available, because it's older than aligned_alloc
+// and so more likely to be provided by replacement malloc libraries that
+// predate the addition of aligned_alloc. See PR libstdc++/113258.
+#if _GLIBCXX_HAVE_POSIX_MEMALIGN
static inline void*
aligned_alloc (std::size_t al, std::size_t sz)
{
@@ -83,6 +80,12 @@ aligned_alloc (std::size_t al, std::size_t sz)
return ptr;
return nullptr;
}
+#elif _GLIBCXX_HAVE_ALIGNED_ALLOC
+using ::aligned_alloc;
+#elif _GLIBCXX_HAVE__ALIGNED_MALLOC
+static inline void*
+aligned_alloc (std::size_t al, std::size_t sz)
+{ return _aligned_malloc(sz, al); }
#elif _GLIBCXX_HAVE_MEMALIGN
static inline void*
aligned_alloc (std::size_t al, std::size_t sz)
@@ -128,7 +131,8 @@ operator new (std::size_t sz, std::align_val_t al)
if (__builtin_expect (sz == 0, false))
sz = 1;
-#if _GLIBCXX_HAVE_ALIGNED_ALLOC
+#if _GLIBCXX_HAVE_POSIX_MEMALIGN
+#elif _GLIBCXX_HAVE_ALIGNED_ALLOC
# if defined _AIX || defined __APPLE__
/* AIX 7.2.0.0 aligned_alloc incorrectly has posix_memalign's requirement
* that alignment is a multiple of sizeof(void*).
--
2.43.0
|
GitWeb