Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 06:59:37 +0200 From: Johannes Weiner <hnazfoo@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Return value of malloc(0) Message-ID: <20060630045937.GB97868@leiferikson.flosken.lan> In-Reply-To: <m33bdnhnv7.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> References: <20060628181045.GA54915@curry.mchp.siemens.de> <20060629054222.GA92895@leiferikson.flosken.lan> <m3bqsceyf2.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> <20060629162319.GA94921@leiferikson.flosken.lan> <m33bdnhnv7.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 07:29:16PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > No, sir. Operator precedence: assign first, and then compare, thus the > comparison will always be true (else you'd be comparing to undefined > values, which isn't any better). You might as well write: > > foo = malloc(0); > /* make noise */ Ok, just for having it done: if (foo == (foo = some_val)) .. would be right to check if foo stayed the same. No? > There is no way to see a 0x800 return from malloc(0) as "error". So noone should actually use malloc(0) and check the size_t argument before passing it, I guess. Hannes -- One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give a birth to a dancing star.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060630045937.GB97868>