Hi again, Pierre Habouzit wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 06:30:58PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>> Why not (4 + i) * sizeof(targv[0])? > > actually I missed that question, it's because in a previous iteration of > the patch Thanks for the explanation. That’s a comfort. >>> Needed for the !taropts case. Good. > > actually this isn't really needed anymore either (before when !taropts, > I had kept the old code, and I didn't used the malloced argv). > memcpy(dst, src, 0) will do what it should, even when src is NULL. What you say makes sense, so I just checked Posix to see if there were any gotchas. It is silent on the issue and defers to ISO C. The C standard itself (at least C99 TC2 from http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/standards.html#9899 ) stubbornly refuses to standardize[1] on the sane behavior: Where an argument declared as size_t n specifies the length of the array for a function, n can have the value zero on a call to that function. Unless explicitly stated otherwise in the description of a particular function in this subclause, pointer arguments on such a call shall still have valid values, as described in 7.1.4. Sadly the description of memcpy() has nothing to add. > But it's only cosmetics of course. Right, it’s only theoretical. If the if is missing and people run into problems dpkg could learn to deal with it then. [1] Library → String handling <string.h> → String function conventions, paragraph 2, currently numbered 7.21.1.2. Thanks to Larry Jones from c.l.c.m, 1996 for a pointer. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100705134745.ga10...@burratino
