On Tue, 29 Dec 2009, Jamie Lokier wrote: > malc wrote: > > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > > > > Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > > > This fixes the loading of a stripped kernel with zero malloc disabled. > > > > > > *Raises an eyebrow* > > > > > > Even though there's different perspectives over whether qemu_malloc(0) > > > should be allowed, inherited from ambiguity over malloc(0), > > > realloc(p,0) has always had a standard, well-defined meaning. > > > > No. > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.std.c/browse_thread/thread/4e9af8847613d71f/6f75ad22e0768a0b?q=realloc++group:comp.std.c#6f75ad22e0768a0b > > Wow, thanks for that. It's a real surprise. Looks like C99's own > rationale is not consistent with itself on the subject, and differs > from C90 where the "standard, well-defined meaning" I referred to was > defined.
Yep. > > See also http://c-faq.com/malloc/reallocnull.html which says "and the > related realloc(..., 0), which frees" and has references at the end. > See, it's not just me :-) Nope not just you, even glibc still uses C90 behaviour. > So thanks for setting me straight. One thing we can all agree on now > is that it's best not to call malloc(0) or realloc(p,0) at all :-) Indeed. -- mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
