On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 07:14:41PM -0400, Barney Wolff wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 04:02:37PM -0700, David Schultz wrote:
> >
> > I don't really care one way or the other, but regardless of what
> > the manpage says, reallocf()'s semantics should probably match the
> > way it's already used
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 04:02:37PM -0700, David Schultz wrote:
>
> I don't really care one way or the other, but regardless of what
> the manpage says, reallocf()'s semantics should probably match the
> way it's already used. Maybe what I found was an isolated bug and
> reallocf() DTRT already.
Thus spake Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 2002-Sep-25 06:32:19 -0700, David Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >2) reallocf(NULL, x) is equivalent to malloc(x), which is the
> > source of this bug. Maybe it shouldn't do that.
[...]
> IMHO, the ability to realloc(NULL, x) simplifies co
On 2002-Sep-25 06:32:19 -0700, David Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>2) reallocf(NULL, x) is equivalent to malloc(x), which is the
> source of this bug. Maybe it shouldn't do that.
The man page specifically states that realloc(NULL, x) is equivalent
to malloc(x) and that reallocf() is the
