On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Jaakko Heinonen wrote:
On 2010-06-28, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Or the malloc(3) call could be fixed with the couple of lines I
> noted (well, adlibbed of course...
>
> Which I agree with, but shouldn't we fix malloc(3) (and any other
> function calls that depend on malloc(3) for sensible results)?
It's not required for POSIX compliance at least. Did you actually read
the quotes from POSIX?
"The value of errno should only be examined when it is indicated to be
valid by a function's return value."
"The setting of errno after a successful call to a function is
unspecified unless the description of that function specifies that errno
shall not be modified."
In other words the value of errno is undefined and shouldn't be
unspecified
examined unless malloc(3) returns NULL.
Not quite even then. malloc(0) may return NULL, so errno shouldn't
be examined unless malloc() returns NULL and its arg (when converted
to a size_t) is nonzero.
Maybe more of these bugs could be found by setting errno to EDOOFUS in
malloc() and other commonly used library functions :-). This is easier
to recognize than say ENOTTY from isatty() in stream initialization on
non-ttys.
Bruce
_______________________________________________
freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-bugs-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
