Hi Marek, On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
Also, no userspace code assuming malloc(0) will return NULL is correct Point being, no matter which implementation is chosen, it is up to the caller to not assume that the choice that was made was, in fact, the choice that was made. I.e. the behaviour of malloc(0) should be able to be changed on a whim with no side-effects So I think I should change my vote to returning NULL for one reason and one reason only - It is faster during run-time Regards, Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
