Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 08:00:22 -0800 From: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: standards/62858: malloc(0) not C99 compliant Message-ID: <20040301160022.GA13617@VARK.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <54807.1078144075@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <xzpznb0iwm0.fsf@dwp.des.no> <54807.1078144075@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <xzpznb0iwm0.fsf@dwp.des.no>, Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?= > writes: > >Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@FreeBSD.org> writes: > >> This is a deliberate choice. Handling zero-size pointers correctly > >> in malloc(3) would be a rather involved and is currently not high > >> on the todolist. A good patch might change that. > > > >The standard does allow returning NULL, you know. > > Yes, but unfortunately that broke more software than I cared for > arguing with authors about. Several other malloc implementations do this, including the one in Tru64. But assuming that there really are lots of broken applications out there, what's wrong with simply converting malloc(0) calls to malloc(1) calls?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040301160022.GA13617>