malc <av1...@comtv.ru> writes: > 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..]
I did. If that doesn't convince you, I'll gladly wait for the Technical Corrigendum that'll put this rather absurd misreading to rest.
