On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 11:02:32 GMT, Almaz <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think the proposed simpler patch makes sense. Basically, it artificially >> expands the allocation size to match the alignment, which is probably not >> going to cause any side-effect as that is likely what was happening anyway... > > @mcimadamore: > > Question regarding `MAX_MALLOC_ALIGN = Unsafe.ADDRESS_SIZE == 4 ? 8 : 16;` > > Is 16 here just a heuristic based on known malloc implementations or is it > backed by something? I can't find anything regarding that in the libc > standard. > > Not related to this particular PR: should `MAX_MALLOC_ALIGN` be > `MIN_MALLOC_ALIGN` instead? Larger allocations might be page size aligned.
> Should I also add [the > test](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/28235#issuecomment-3532821794) > suggested by @Yqwed before we conclude this PR, or is it better to leave it > for a later one? I've tested it a bit, but I'm not sure it provides any extra value. It seems to only trigger on the same condition as the existing `testActualByteAlignment` and `testAlignedAccess` tests in `TestMemoryAlignment.java`.. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28235#issuecomment-3557849641
