On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Markus Armbruster wrote: > malc <av1...@comtv.ru> writes: > > > 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. > > No, this is a misinterpretation of the C99 standard, made possible by > its poor wording. The C99 Rationale is perfectly clear, though:
You have to show the flaw in Hallvard B Furuseth's analysis to claim that it's a misinterpretation. And unlike the standard rationale is non normative. [..snip..] -- mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
