Nathan Kennedy wrote:
If saving that one test is worth the risk that MALLOC_0_IS_NONNULL will
always be correctly be defined, e.g. that this will never always be true
for all potential users:
+#ifdef _LIBC
+# define MALLOC_0_IS_NONNULL 1
uClibc defines it too:
libc-symbols.h:#define _LIBC1
On 4/18/2014 1:44 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
the MALLOC_0_IS_NONNULL macro attempting to check for
malloc(0) failure is not needed.
It's not needed for correctness, but it helps performance on GNU
hosts, no? It lets them avoid an unnecessary test "size != 0" at
runtime. The MALLOC_0_IS_NONNULL te
Nathan Kennedy wrote:
I think this dependency can be removed.
Thanks, I installed a patch along those lines.
the MALLOC_0_IS_NONNULL macro attempting to check for
malloc(0) failure is not needed.
It's not needed for correctness, but it helps performance on GNU hosts,
no? It lets them avoi
The malloc-gnu (then malloc) dependency was added at
91f0c71300fb4f48cd39df121b8434f56012502c in response to a bug report
with sed built against uClibc:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-utils/2005-08/msg00112.html
The error was directly fixed at bbf0d723ed2335add96bcc0f842885d8a5d8b6d
