Anthony Liguori <aligu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > Markus Armbruster wrote: >> This still aborts on qemu_realloc(NULL, 0), even with >> CONFIG_ZERO_MALLOC. Intentional? >> > I guess not. Should it? Seems like a very strange case..
It is a strange case, but I think the point of this commit is not to abort on conditions perceived strange ;) I think it should follow C89 and behave exactly like qemu_malloc(0).
