Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Simon Josefsson wrote on Sat, May 27, 2006 at 12:35:21PM CEST: >> >> I hadn't actually even compiled the module.. > > Let's put it this way: Using a mailing list to fix trivial > compile warnings doesn't encourage further code reviews.
Right, sorry. > * Simon Josefsson wrote on Sat, May 27, 2006 at 12:40:37PM CEST: >> Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > >> > You pass NULL to realloc and possibly to free but are not >> > depending on the realloc and free modules. >> >> The free case was fixed in the last e-mail, but isn't realloc supposed >> to handle NULL? > > $ sed 2q modules/free > Description: > Work around incompatibility on older systems where free (NULL) fails. > > $ info Autoconf "Function Portability" # CVS Autoconf > | `free' > | The C standard says a call `free (NULL)' does nothing, but some > | old systems don't support this (e.g., NextStep). > [...] > | `realloc' > | The C standard says a call `realloc (NULL, size)' is equivalent to > | `malloc (size)', but some old systems don't support this (e.g., > | NextStep). > > Granted, this really isn't wide-spread any more nowadays. > (UNICOS had this at one time, too; I merely still jump at > it today because I had to learn it the hard way back then.) I've added realloc as a dependency, the free module isn't necessary since the code is fixed now, and also the license on the free module is GPL, and GnuTLS need a LGPL strfile. Btw, there seem to be some overlap between the "realloc" and "eealloc" modules. The eealloc realloc implementation differ slightly from the realloc one. And the eealloc is GPL although the only module that depends on eealloc is LGPL. I wonder if that is right. Bruno? Thanks, Simon
