rust/library/alloc/tests/heap.rs

45 lines
1.3 KiB
Rust
Raw Normal View History

use std::alloc::{Allocator, Global, Layout, System};
alloc_system: don’t assume MIN_ALIGN for small sizes, fix #45955 The GNU C library (glibc) is documented to always allocate with an alignment of at least 8 or 16 bytes, on 32-bit or 64-bit platforms: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Aligned-Memory-Blocks.html This matches our use of `MIN_ALIGN` before this commit. However, even when libc is glibc, the program might be linked with another allocator that redefines the `malloc` symbol and friends. (The `alloc_jemalloc` crate does, in some cases.) So `alloc_system` doesn’t know which allocator it calls, and needs to be conservative in assumptions it makes. The C standard says: https://port70.net/%7Ensz/c/c11/n1570.html#7.22.3 > 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 https://port70.net/~nsz/c/c11/n1570.html#6.2.8p2 > A fundamental alignment is represented by an alignment less than > or equal to the greatest alignment supported by the implementation > in all contexts, which is equal to `_Alignof (max_align_t)`. `_Alignof (max_align_t)` depends on the ABI and doesn’t seem to have a clear definition, but it seems to match our `MIN_ALIGN` in practice. However, the size of objects is rounded up to the next multiple of their alignment (since that size is also the stride used in arrays). Conversely, the alignment of a non-zero-size object is at most its size. So for example it seems ot be legal for `malloc(8)` to return a pointer that’s only 8-bytes-aligned, even if `_Alignof (max_align_t)` is 16.
2017-11-20 14:30:04 +00:00
/// Issue #45955 and #62251.
alloc_system: don’t assume MIN_ALIGN for small sizes, fix #45955 The GNU C library (glibc) is documented to always allocate with an alignment of at least 8 or 16 bytes, on 32-bit or 64-bit platforms: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Aligned-Memory-Blocks.html This matches our use of `MIN_ALIGN` before this commit. However, even when libc is glibc, the program might be linked with another allocator that redefines the `malloc` symbol and friends. (The `alloc_jemalloc` crate does, in some cases.) So `alloc_system` doesn’t know which allocator it calls, and needs to be conservative in assumptions it makes. The C standard says: https://port70.net/%7Ensz/c/c11/n1570.html#7.22.3 > 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 https://port70.net/~nsz/c/c11/n1570.html#6.2.8p2 > A fundamental alignment is represented by an alignment less than > or equal to the greatest alignment supported by the implementation > in all contexts, which is equal to `_Alignof (max_align_t)`. `_Alignof (max_align_t)` depends on the ABI and doesn’t seem to have a clear definition, but it seems to match our `MIN_ALIGN` in practice. However, the size of objects is rounded up to the next multiple of their alignment (since that size is also the stride used in arrays). Conversely, the alignment of a non-zero-size object is at most its size. So for example it seems ot be legal for `malloc(8)` to return a pointer that’s only 8-bytes-aligned, even if `_Alignof (max_align_t)` is 16.
2017-11-20 14:30:04 +00:00
#[test]
fn alloc_system_overaligned_request() {
check_overalign_requests(System)
}
#[test]
fn std_heap_overaligned_request() {
2018-04-03 19:15:06 +00:00
check_overalign_requests(Global)
}
fn check_overalign_requests<T: Allocator>(allocator: T) {
2019-12-22 22:42:04 +00:00
for &align in &[4, 8, 16, 32] {
// less than and bigger than `MIN_ALIGN`
for &size in &[align / 2, align - 1] {
// size less than alignment
let iterations = 128;
unsafe {
2019-12-22 22:42:04 +00:00
let pointers: Vec<_> = (0..iterations)
.map(|_| {
allocator.allocate(Layout::from_size_align(size, align).unwrap()).unwrap()
2019-12-22 22:42:04 +00:00
})
.collect();
for &ptr in &pointers {
2019-12-22 22:42:04 +00:00
assert_eq!(
(ptr.as_non_null_ptr().as_ptr() as usize) % align,
2019-12-22 22:42:04 +00:00
0,
"Got a pointer less aligned than requested"
)
}
alloc_system: don’t assume MIN_ALIGN for small sizes, fix #45955 The GNU C library (glibc) is documented to always allocate with an alignment of at least 8 or 16 bytes, on 32-bit or 64-bit platforms: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Aligned-Memory-Blocks.html This matches our use of `MIN_ALIGN` before this commit. However, even when libc is glibc, the program might be linked with another allocator that redefines the `malloc` symbol and friends. (The `alloc_jemalloc` crate does, in some cases.) So `alloc_system` doesn’t know which allocator it calls, and needs to be conservative in assumptions it makes. The C standard says: https://port70.net/%7Ensz/c/c11/n1570.html#7.22.3 > 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 https://port70.net/~nsz/c/c11/n1570.html#6.2.8p2 > A fundamental alignment is represented by an alignment less than > or equal to the greatest alignment supported by the implementation > in all contexts, which is equal to `_Alignof (max_align_t)`. `_Alignof (max_align_t)` depends on the ABI and doesn’t seem to have a clear definition, but it seems to match our `MIN_ALIGN` in practice. However, the size of objects is rounded up to the next multiple of their alignment (since that size is also the stride used in arrays). Conversely, the alignment of a non-zero-size object is at most its size. So for example it seems ot be legal for `malloc(8)` to return a pointer that’s only 8-bytes-aligned, even if `_Alignof (max_align_t)` is 16.
2017-11-20 14:30:04 +00:00
// Clean up
for &ptr in &pointers {
allocator.deallocate(
ptr.as_non_null_ptr(),
Layout::from_size_align(size, align).unwrap(),
)
}
}
alloc_system: don’t assume MIN_ALIGN for small sizes, fix #45955 The GNU C library (glibc) is documented to always allocate with an alignment of at least 8 or 16 bytes, on 32-bit or 64-bit platforms: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Aligned-Memory-Blocks.html This matches our use of `MIN_ALIGN` before this commit. However, even when libc is glibc, the program might be linked with another allocator that redefines the `malloc` symbol and friends. (The `alloc_jemalloc` crate does, in some cases.) So `alloc_system` doesn’t know which allocator it calls, and needs to be conservative in assumptions it makes. The C standard says: https://port70.net/%7Ensz/c/c11/n1570.html#7.22.3 > 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 https://port70.net/~nsz/c/c11/n1570.html#6.2.8p2 > A fundamental alignment is represented by an alignment less than > or equal to the greatest alignment supported by the implementation > in all contexts, which is equal to `_Alignof (max_align_t)`. `_Alignof (max_align_t)` depends on the ABI and doesn’t seem to have a clear definition, but it seems to match our `MIN_ALIGN` in practice. However, the size of objects is rounded up to the next multiple of their alignment (since that size is also the stride used in arrays). Conversely, the alignment of a non-zero-size object is at most its size. So for example it seems ot be legal for `malloc(8)` to return a pointer that’s only 8-bytes-aligned, even if `_Alignof (max_align_t)` is 16.
2017-11-20 14:30:04 +00:00
}
}
}