Hi Mike, On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sunday 01 April 2012 20:25:44 Graeme Russ wrote: >> b) The code calling malloc(0) is making a perfectly legitimate assumption >> based on how glibc handles malloc(0) > > not really. POSIX says malloc(0) is implementation defined (so it may return > a > unique address, or it may return NULL). no userspace code assuming malloc(0) > will return non-NULL is correct. > -mike
Argh! Valid point - So we can basically say that it does not matter what we do (return NULL or return a valid pointer). Because the behaviour is implementation specific, it is up to the caller to deal with it. Regards, Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
