Commit Graph

6 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Alex Crichton cc7590341a std: Delete the alloc_system crate
This commit deletes the `alloc_system` crate from the standard
distribution. This unstable crate is no longer needed in the modern
stable global allocator world, but rather its functionality is folded
directly into the standard library. The standard library was already the
only stable location to access this crate, and as a result this should
not affect any stable code.
2018-11-11 09:22:28 -08:00
Alex Crichton 61e89446ef Remove all jemalloc-related content
This commit removes all jemalloc related submodules, configuration, etc,
from the bootstrap, from the standard library, and from the compiler.
This will be followed up with a change to use jemalloc specifically as
part of rustc on blessed platforms.
2018-11-02 06:52:56 -07:00
Mike Hommey fddf51ee0b Use NonNull<Void> instead of *mut u8 in the Alloc trait
Fixes #49608
2018-04-12 22:53:22 +02:00
Simon Sapin e521b8b472 Actually deprecate the Heap type 2018-04-12 22:52:47 +02:00
Simon Sapin 2dd268b652 alloc_jemalloc: don’t assume MIN_ALIGN for small sizes
See previous commit’s message for what is expected of allocators
in general, and https://github.com/jemalloc/jemalloc/issues/1072
for discussion of what jemalloc does specifically.
2017-11-20 16:22:17 +01:00
Simon Sapin 21d899272a 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 15:56:53 +01:00