Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #403237

Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise

Show key headers only | View raw

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:

> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>
>> In article <11ap0fo$1t8gq$2@kst.eternal-september.org>,
>> Keith Thompson  <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>
>>>> In article <11amvh2$14pou$3@kst.eternal-september.org>,
>>>> Keith Thompson  <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> So "a fundamental alignment requirement" and "size less than or
>>>>> equal to the size requested" are parallel requirements, both
>>>>> applying to the type of the pointed-to object.
>>>>
>>>> That is one of the two reasonable interpretations.  The other is
>>>> that the requirements placed on size and fundamental alignment
>>>> of the pointer type are cumulative and dependent on the size of
>>>> the allocation.  If so, then nothing in the C standard prevents
>>>> an implementation from from returning a pointer aligned to
>>>> `alignof(char)` for `malloc(1)`.
>>>
>>> I do see the parsing ambiguity now.
>>>
>>> I believe that's consistent with the way I parsed it.  A successful
>>> malloc(1) returns a value that can be assigned to a pointer of type
>>> char*, which points to the object type "char", which does have (a
>>> fundamental alignment requirement) and (a size less than or equal
>>> to the size requested).
>>
>> Right, but I think it's a bit deeper than that.
>>
>> Somewhat informally, the C17 wording could be read as requiring
>> that the pointer returned from `malloc` must be suitable for
>> assignment to any pointer to a type with `alignof(max_align_t)`
>> regardless of the requested size, which might be smaller.  N2293
>> calls this the, '"strong-alignment" reading.'
>
> The C17 wording is:
>
>     The pointer returned if the allocation succeeds is suitably aligned
>     so that it may be assigned to a pointer to any type of object with a
>     fundamental alignment requirement and then used to access such an
>     object or an array of such objects in the space allocated (until the
>     space is explicitly deallocated).
>
> I don't see any other way to interpret that.  It requires that
> a pointer returned by a successful malloc() must *always* be
> suitably aligned.  A pointer returned by malloc(1) must be aligned
> so that it can point to a long long, for example.
>
> It overlooks the fact that it can't point to a long long, because
> there isn't room for it.  [...]

Let's see if we can get this discussion back on the rails.

Put yourself back in 1999.  Forget about anything from 2000 onwards.
There is just one relevant sentence in the C99 standard:

   The pointer returned if the allocation succeeds is suitably
   aligned so that it may be assigned to a pointer to any type of
   object and then used to access such an object in the space
   allocated (until the space is explicitly deallocated).

The original C standard says the same thing except it says "... is
explicitly freed or reallocated" rather than deallocated.

The intended meaning here is straightforward.  A pointer returned from
malloc() may be assigned to any pointer no matter what type it points
to.  Non-null pointers may be used to access a suitably sized array.
If the size requested is smaller than the pointed-to type, using the
pointer follows the rule for zero-length flexible array members:  it
acts like an array of size 1 except that trying to access the element
or advance to the next element is undefined behavior.  In other words
it's okay to use the pointer as a pointer but it can't be incremented
or dereferenced.

Now go forward to 2011.  We want the same behavior for malloc() as in
C99, only now we have to consider types with overly large alignments.
For obvious reasons we don't want to force malloc() to make worst-case
assumptions about what the alignment needs will be.  A new function
aligned_alloc() is added, with an extra parameter to specify what
alignment is needed, to take care of types with overly large alignment
needs.  The general rule for what pointer types are covered is changed
to admit the same kinds as when there were no overly large alignments;
that change is put in place by adding the clause "with a fundamental
alignment requirement" to the general description of memory management
functions.  The description of aligned_alloc() says specifically that
it allocates an object having the given alignment value (and so the
returned pointer value presumably may be used as such).  What happens
with requests whose size is smaller than what the assigned-to pointer
type implies is the same as before, following the FAM rule;  that rule
applies to aligned_alloc() the same as is does for malloc().

Note by the way that aligned_alloc() may be used to ask for a space
whose alignment is smaller than normal as well as any overly large
alignment.  So malloc() should be used for generic alignments, and
aligned_alloc() should be used any too-small or too-large alignment.

I don't have a copy of the C17 standard handy, but I expect it says
the same thing about malloc() and friends as the C11 standard does.

Regarding the discussion in N2293, I'm sorry to say that either the
author is not too bright or he just didn't have his Wheaties that
morning.  He reads the words but he doesn't understand the meaning.  
A fair guess is that he made two common mistakes:  one, he didn't
consider the historical context, and two, he looked at passages in
isolation without taking into account a broader context.  The Standard
is not meant to be read like a legal document.  All the parts are
expected to fit together, and in deciding what a particular passage
means one needs to consider other surrounding and related passages and
how they might interact.  As for the arguments about how various
implementations behave, the reasoning is backwards.  It's the tail
wagging the dog.  We don't judge what the C standard means based on
what implementations do;  rather we decide what the C standard is
meant to say and then assess whether a proposed implementation is
conforming.  The possibility of potential performance benefits does
not excuse changing the behavior required under previous C standards.
If someone thinks that's important they should use aligned_alloc();
otherwise they should just use malloc() and know that it will behave
the way it always has.

Bottom line:  the discussion in N2293 is misguided.  A technical
corrigendum should be issued, putting back the language used in C11
and C17, and adding a footnote explaining that aligned_alloc() can be
used for any allocation whose alignment is other than the default
alignment provided by malloc().

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-06 23:08 -0700
  Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-07 15:25 +0200
    Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-07 12:13 -0700
      Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-07 21:28 +0200
        Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-08 05:31 -0700
          Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-09 11:12 +0200
            Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-09 11:12 +0200
      Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-10-07 20:10 -0500
        Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-08 05:56 -0700
          Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-10-08 15:09 -0500
            Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-08 22:56 +0200
              Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-10-08 17:29 -0500
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-09 09:56 +0200
            Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-09 01:39 +0200
              Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-09 00:03 -0700
            Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-08 23:53 -0700
              Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-09 10:34 +0200
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-09 12:27 +0200
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-09 12:59 +0200
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-09 11:43 +0100
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-09 13:20 +0200
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-09 12:38 +0000
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-09 16:05 +0200
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-09 17:54 +0200
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-10 10:38 +0800
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-10-10 03:12 +0000
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-10 04:44 +0000
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 14:12 -0700
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-09 19:48 +0000
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-09 23:18 +0000
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-10 15:27 +0200
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 18:26 +0000
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 21:17 +0200
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-09 17:47 +0300
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-09 16:48 +0000
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 19:08 +0300
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-10 18:29 +0200
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-10 17:44 +0000
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-10 23:22 +0200
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-10 17:43 +0000
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 20:35 +0200
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-10 19:36 +0000
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 22:08 +0200
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 23:21 +0300
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-10 20:55 +0000
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-10 20:22 +0000
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 23:32 +0300
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-11 15:24 +0000
  Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 19:40 +0200
  Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-10 12:39 -0700
    Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 23:00 +0300
    Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 22:28 +0200
    Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-10 19:02 -0700
  Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise "chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-13 01:38 -0700
    Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-13 11:42 +0200
      Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-13 10:55 +0000
      Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 04:29 -0700
        Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-13 14:01 +0200
          Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 05:09 -0700
          Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-13 19:01 +0000
        Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-13 15:17 +0000
          Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-13 17:39 +0200
          Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 09:01 -0700
            Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-13 21:17 +0000
              Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise "chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-13 18:01 -0700
              Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 21:13 -0700
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-14 09:43 +0200
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 20:11 +0000
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 15:25 -0700
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-15 09:28 +0200
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 14:13 +0000
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-14 18:03 +0200
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 18:21 +0000
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 15:42 -0700
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 14:25 +0000
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-15 15:54 -0700
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-15 23:51 +0000
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-15 18:14 -0700
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-16 20:26 +0000
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 15:27 -0700
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-16 03:09 +0000
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-15 21:34 -0700
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-16 11:27 +0000
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:27 -0700
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-17 08:21 -0700
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-17 10:48 -0700
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-17 18:10 +0000
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-14 10:39 -0700
          Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-13 17:15 +0000
            Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-13 21:30 +0000
      Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise "chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-13 08:19 -0700
      Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 13:16 -0700
        Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-13 23:28 +0300
    Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-13 06:20 -0400
      Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-13 14:34 +0000
        Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 20:45 -0700
          Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 14:25 +0000
          Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-14 20:54 -0700
            Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 22:47 -0700
              Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-15 04:42 -0700
              Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-15 14:07 -0700
                Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-17 20:28 -0700
    Re: AVL tree insertion - programming exercise Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 03:52 -0700

csiph-web