On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 11:44:23AM -0400, Pat Lashley wrote:
> No, our implementation is NOT legal. We always return the SAME value. To
> be legal, we should not return that value again unless it has been
> free()-ed.
It is legal due to brain damaged definition of implementation defined
behaviour, but it violates the spirit of the standard :-)
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the 'implementation defined behavior' choices in
the standard. I thought that it could either 1) Return NULL; or 2) Behave as
though it returned a 'minimum allocation' (which cannot be legally
de-referenced). But if it did actually perform a 'minimum allocation';
wouldn't it have to return a different value every time to maintain the free()
semantics?
-Pat
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
