Ben Pfaff wrote: > This approach will cause false-positive warnings under memory > debuggers such as Valgrind.
Good point. > However, anyone who notices such a > warning should be able to spot from the comments in the function > that it is still correct code given the assumption you have > above, so I don't think that is a big deal. Why should a developer who uses gnulib have to write valgrind suppression files to work around ISO C99 violations in gnulib? We can at least provide a strchrnul.valgrind file, like the 'malloca' module already does. Then this developer can use the option --suppressions=$(srcdir)/strchrnul.valgrind in his Makefile. Several --suppressions options can be given; gnulib-tool does not need to combine the various suppressions files. Bruno
