Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!caip!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!brahms!desj
From: desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: net.unix,net.unix-wizards,net.arch,net.lang.c
Subject: Re: get size of malloc'd object
Message-ID: <14533@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Mon, 23-Jun-86 21:09:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.14533
Posted: Mon Jun 23 21:09:53 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Jun-86 06:30:36 EDT
References: <165@daisy.UUCP> <334@valid.UUCP> <2206@peora.UUCP> <2081@umcp-cs.UUCP> <2216@peora.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 15
Xref: watmath net.unix:8372 net.unix-wizards:18586 net.arch:3563 net.lang.c:9571


   I can't believe all of this discussion about clever tricks to try to guess
how malloc does alignment, or what the maximum alignment boundary is, or
whatever.  No matter what you do along these lines, it is going to be possible
to devise a perfectly valid C implementation in which it will fail.
   It seems obvious that the solution to the whole problem is to define a
structure which contains two fields: the pointer to memory returned by malloc,
and an int (or long int, or whatever) which contains the size of the block
requested from malloc.  This is guaranteed to work, as opposed to the many
alternate implementations that have been proposed and are guaranteed to fail
on at least some architectures.
   Note that in a strongly-typed language you would have had to do the right
thing from the beginning...

   -- David desJardins