the case where mem was already aligned is handled earlier in the
function now.

this bug was caught by the new footer-corruption check in realloc and
free.

if the block returned by malloc was already aligned to the desired
alignment, memalign's logic to split off the misaligned head was
incorrect; rather than writing to a point inside the allocated block,
it was overwriting the footer of the previous block on the heap with
the value 1 (length 0 plus an in-use flag).

fortunately, the impact of this bug was fairly low. (this is probably
why it was not caught sooner.) due to the way the heap works, malloc
will never return a block whose previous block is free. (doing so would
be harmful because it would increase fragmentation with no benefit.)
the footer is actually not needed for in-use blocks, except that its
in-use bit needs to remain set so that it does not get merged with
free blocks, so there was no harm in it being set to 1 instead of the
correct value.

however, there is one case where this bug could have had an impact: in
multi-threaded programs, if another thread freed the previous block
after memalign's call to malloc returned, but before memalign
overwrote the previous block's footer, the resulting block in the free
list could be left in a corrupt state. I have not analyzed the impact
of this bad state and whether it could lead to more serious
malfunction.

the sizes in the header and footer for a chunk should always match. if
they don't, the program has definitely invoked undefined behavior, and
the most likely cause is a simple overflow, either of a buffer in the
block being freed or the one just below it.

crashing here should not only improve security of buggy programs, but
also aid in debugging, since the crash happens in a context where you
have a pointer to the likely-overflowed buffer.

there are two motivations for this change. one is to avoid
gratuitously depending on a C11 symbol for implementing a POSIX
function. the other pertains to the documented semantics. C11 does not
define any behavior for aligned_alloc when the length argument is not
a multiple of the alignment argument. posix_memalign on the other hand
places no requirements on the length argument. using __memalign as the
implementation of both, rather than trying to implement one in terms
of the other when their documented contracts differ, eliminates this
confusion.

C11 has no requirement that the alignment be a multiple of
sizeof(void*), and in fact seems to require any "valid alignment
supported by the implementation" to work. since the alignment of char
is 1 and thus a valid alignment, an alignment argument of 1 should be
accepted.

this change fixes an obscure issue with some nonstandard kernels,
where the initial brk syscall returns a pointer just past the end of
bss rather than the beginning of a new page. in that case, the dynamic
linker has already reclaimed the space between the end of bss and the
page end for use by malloc, and memory corruption (allocating the same
memory twice) will occur when malloc again claims it on the first call
to brk.

in case of mmap-obtained chunks, end points past the end of the
mapping and reading it may fault. since the value is not needed until
after the conditional, move the access to prevent invalid reads.

with this patch, the malloc in libc.so built with -Os is nearly the
same speed as the one built with -O3. thus it solves the performance
regression that resulted from removing the forced -O3 when building
libc.so; now libc.so can be both small and fast.

based on Gregor's patch sent to the list. includes:
- stdalign.h
- removing gets in C11 mode
- adding aligned_alloc and adjusting other functions to use it
- adding 'x' flag to fopen for exclusive mode

i did some testing trying to switch malloc to use the new internal
lock with priority inheritance, and my malloc contention test got
20-100 times slower. if priority inheritance futexes are this slow,
it's simply too high a price to pay for avoiding priority inversion.
maybe we can consider them somewhere down the road once the kernel
folks get their act together on this (and perferably don't link it to
glibc's inefficient lock API)...

as such, i've switch __lock to use malloc's implementation of
lightweight locks, and updated all the users of the code to use an
array with a waiter count for their locks. this should give optimal
performance in the vast majority of cases, and it's simple.

malloc is still using its own internal copy of the lock code because
it seems to yield measurably better performance with -O3 when it's
inlined (20% or more difference in the contention stress test).