On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 14:40, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote on 2012/04/02 20:00:03: >> Dear Joakim Tjernlund, >> > Depends, if writing generic code for lots of OS:es you cannot rely >> > malloc(0). Writing kernel code you can. >> >> No you cannot. It's in the spec you cannot and you have to behave according >> to >> the spec, not according to kernel. > > How so? The kernel is its own system and has it own rules and it is wise > to follow them.
correct >> > From Scotts example we already know there is kernel code that relies on >> > malloc(0) not returning NULL. >> >> Sure, but that means the code is messed up. > > ohh, I don't think the kernel people will agree: > http://lwn.net/Articles/236920/ > But feel free to bring it up. i dislike the malloc(0) returning valid memory, but i'm fine with the ZERO_SIZE_PTR idea. i think we'd have to delegate this to arches though to pick a pointer that'd work for them ... certainly the kernel definition won't work for us: #define ZERO_SIZE_PTR ((void *)16) address 0 and higher is valid memory on many platforms. for Blackfin systems, (-16) should work. -mike _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
