On Tue, 2019-09-17 at 16:16 +0000, Toomas Soome wrote: > Author: tsoome > Date: Tue Sep 17 16:16:46 2019 > New Revision: 352451 > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/352451 > > Log: > loader: revert r352421 > > As insisted by kib, malloc(0) is quite legal. > > Modified: > head/stand/libsa/zalloc_malloc.c > > Modified: head/stand/libsa/zalloc_malloc.c > ============================================================================== > --- head/stand/libsa/zalloc_malloc.c Tue Sep 17 15:53:40 2019 > (r352450) > +++ head/stand/libsa/zalloc_malloc.c Tue Sep 17 16:16:46 2019 > (r352451) > @@ -73,9 +73,6 @@ Malloc_align(size_t bytes, size_t alignment) > { > Guard *res; > > - if (bytes == 0) > - return (NULL); > - > #ifdef USEENDGUARD > bytes += MALLOCALIGN + 1; > #else
For the record, you're both right. In both the C and posix standards for malloc(), an implementation is allowed to return either NULL or a unique pointer which cannot be used to access any memory but must be passed to free(). -- Ian _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
