On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 08:07:46PM +0200, Thomas Quinot wrote: > * Hajimu UMEMOTO, 2004-09-21 : > > > Because, the behavior of freeaddrinfo (NULL) is undefined in RFC 2553 > > nor RFC 3493. Having such an assumption is a potentially bug and > > lose portability. > > That a construct has no defined meaning does not imply that we must make > every effort to break applications that (erroneously) make use of it. > Would there be any significant drawback for conforming applications > if we made our best to deploy a safety net againt buggy user programs > by not segfaulting in this case? > > There are many situations where the system already detects an invalid > pointer and reports it gracefully as an error rather than triggering a > fatal signal.
If it wouldn't be too evil, making freeaddrinfo die when malloc's A flag was set and succeed otherwise might be a reasionable compromise. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4
pgpBJpxnnaXxY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
