Re: new module 'aligned-malloc'

[Paul Eggert]

On 7/23/20 5:24 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Ah, 4096 is too small.
>
> For large allocations (above the mmap threshold), what happens in the
> example is that the process VMA limit is eventually exhausted, at which
> malloc falls back to sbrk, and then the algorithm succeeds.  I don't
> think it's a good idea to trigger ENOMEM, it's certainly not
> thread-safe.

I'm not sure I see what ENOMEM has to do with it if the algorithm is succeeding.

Anyway, none of this matters since glibc has aligned_alloc already. All that 
matters is how well native MS-Windows performs since it's the only significant 
platform that lacks native support for aligned allocation. I don't use 
MS-Windows so I'm not the best person to comment on it; still, I'd be surprised 
if there's no way to support common uses of aligned_alloc on MS-Windows, such as 
the use that prompted this thread.