On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> malc writes:
>
> > On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >
> >> malc writes:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >
> > [..snip..]
> >
> >> >> No, this is a misinterpretation of the C99 standard, made possible by
>
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> malc writes:
>
> > On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> >
> >> Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> > malc writes:
> >> >
> >> > > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> malc wrote:
> >> > >> > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, Jamie Lokie
malc writes:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>
>> Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> > malc writes:
>> >
>> > > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> malc wrote:
>> > >> > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> > >> > > > T
malc writes:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>> malc writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
> [..snip..]
>
>> >> No, this is a misinterpretation of the C99 standard, made possible by
>> >> its poor wording. The C99 Rationale is perfectly clear, though
Jamie Lokier writes:
> Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> I didn't claim there's *no* difference between C89 and C99. In fact,
>> the Rationale nicely documents the change:
>>
>> [snipped]
>> Also, implementations that support an
>> actual allocation when the size is zero do not necessaril
Markus Armbruster wrote:
> I didn't claim there's *no* difference between C89 and C99. In fact,
> the Rationale nicely documents the change:
>
> [snipped]
> Also, implementations that support an
> actual allocation when the size is zero do not necessarily return a
> null pointer f
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> malc writes:
>
> > On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Markus Armbruster wrote:
[..snip..]
> >> 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
malc writes:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>> malc 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 kerne
Jamie Lokier writes:
> Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> malc 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 mal
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > malc 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 s
Markus Armbruster wrote:
> malc 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.
> >> > >
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> malc 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
> >> >
malc 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 t
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 perspectiv
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, inheri
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
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 02:53:25PM +, 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 a
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-define
This fixes the loading of a stripped kernel with zero malloc disabled.
Signed-off-by: Aurelien Jarno
---
hw/elf_ops.h |9 +++--
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/elf_ops.h b/hw/elf_ops.h
index 6093dea..d0811ca 100644
--- a/hw/elf_ops.h
+++ b/hw/elf_ops.h
@
19 matches
Mail list logo