Date:Wed, 31 Aug 2022 16:08:17 +0200
From:Joerg Sonnenberger
Message-ID:
| I'm poking at this because it ignores consistency with malloc(0).
| malloc(0) and realloc(NULL, 0) should behave the same. Frankly, this
| doesn't seem to be well thought out at all..
A
Date:Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:35:15 +0200
From:Joerg Sonnenberger
Message-ID:
| So what did they specify for reallocarray in POSIX now?
The basic specification is simple:
The reallocarray( ) function shall be equivalent to the call
realloc(ptr, nelem * elsize)
Am Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:33:18PM +0700 schrieb Robert Elz:
> This is all, according to the application usage section, because of what
> the C standard is planning to do:
>
>The description of realloc( ) has been modified from previous versions
>of this standard to align with the ISO/IEC
Date:Wed, 31 Aug 2022 12:18:52 +
From:Taylor R Campbell
Message-ID: <20220831121853.789a060...@jupiter.mumble.net>
[reallocarr(3)]
| Better now?
Yes, much much better. Thanks.
kre
Am Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 05:36:56PM +0700 schrieb Robert Elz:
> The man page for reallocarray() says that reallocarr() was created
> to avoid the ambiguity with 0 sized allocations (which stems from
> realloc() in posix - because some realloc() implementations behaved
> differently than others).
So
> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 17:36:56 +0700
> From: Robert Elz
>
> This might also be an appropriate time to fix the man page for
> reallocarr(3) so it actually says something more than giving one
> (mediocre) example.
Better now?
| On Tue, 30 Aug 2022, Thomas Klausner wrote:
|
| > So I'd like to put it outside of the _OPENBSD_SOURCE #ifdef
Date:Tue, 30 Aug 2022 22:13:51 + (UTC)
From:RVP
Message-ID: <6d38a97c-7b21-2cce-a4f-af4486c06...@sdf.org>
| Go for it.
If this happens, don't
