Hi Marek, On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Graeme Russ, > >> 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 > > Well, this still might break some code which assumes otherwise ... like you > said. And like I said, let's break it because it worked only be a sheer > coincidence ;-)
+1 your debug() and return NULL solution Regards, Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
