On Sunday 26 April 2009 18:15:52 Bruno Haible wrote: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > AC_FUNC_MALLOC should define malloc to rpl_malloc and > > the code from the malloc module should be used and fix this issue, no? > > My modules don't use AC_FUNC_MALLOC. From a performance perspective, > I see no point in adding an extra function call for every malloc > invocation, while only few among these invocations can actually be called > with a zero argument. From a standards perspective, I stick with ISO C99 > and POSIX.
us uClibc users appreciate it because often times, malloc(0) is configured to return NULL. requiring a full malloc implementation for something stupid (imo) like this is, well, stupid (imo) ;). -mike
