On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:27:50 -0800 Jim Meyering <j...@meyering.net> wrote: > Thanks for confirming. > In that case, since I see no harm in calling xnmalloc with N = 0, I > will use a more conservative change: guard only the undefined use of > memcpy. > I've left your name on this amended patch.
Thanks for the ajustment. You are right, but the purpose of the code is to make a clone of original DFA. If we do not guard xnmalloc, when calloc is 0, charclasses is NULL in original DFA, and it is *NOT* NULL in the superset. I think that it is not right logically.
