Dear Mike Frysinger, > 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.
Which is your implementation-defined ;-) But I have to agree with this one. So my vote is for returning NULL. > -mike Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
