Manuel M T Chakravarty chak at
Mon Jan 13 05:00:33 EST 2003

Fergus Henderson <fjh at> wrote,

> On 09-Jan-2003, Ross Paterson <ross at> wrote:
> > Two additions I think are required:
> > 
> > 1) The spec should state that mallocBytes and allocaBytes return a block
> >    of memory sufficiently aligned for any of the primitive types supported
> >    by the architecture.
> I disagree.  These routines should only be required to align the memory
> sufficiently for any of the primitive types which could fit in the amount
> of space allocated.  For example, double precision floats might occupy
> 8 bytes, and require 8-byte alignment, but four-bytes allocations should
> not be required to be 8-byte aligned.
> (This is something the C standard got wrong, IMHO.)

I agree with Fergus.

Ross Paterson <ross at> wrote,

> 2) The description of Storable should require
> 	sizeOf x `mod` alignment x = 0
>    The library implementation of mallocArray implicitly assumes this, and
>    C also requires that elements of an array are allocated contiguously.

Ok.  I attach the amended description of these functions.



\item[sizeOf~~~~::\ Storable a => a -> Int]
\item[alignment~::\ Storable a => a -> Int]\combineitems The function
  \code{sizeOf} computes the storage requirements (in bytes) of the argument,
  and alignment computes the alignment constraint of the argument.  An
  alignment constraint \code{x} is fulfilled by any address divisible by
  \code{x}. Both functions do not evaluate their argument, but compute the
  result on the basis of the type of the argument alone.  We require that all
  the elements of a contiguous array of storable values meet the alignment
  constraint of these values; more formally, we require that
sizeOf v `mod` alignment v == 0

More information about the FFI mailing list