On 4/27/11 8:29 PM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
"Sean McGovern"<[email protected]> writes:
On Solaris, malloc(0) returns a NULL pointer. This, and returning a
valid pointer of 0 length are both considered POSIX-compliant.
Thus there is no need to protect against it. The result of malloc(0)
should never be dereferenced, so whether it is null or not doesn't matter.
If this patch is intended to fix the Darwin breakage, I am very much
against it.
If we mismanage one of the two posix compliant effect of malloc(0) then
we could either fix it in the wrapper (a bit ugly) or fix the actual bug.
lu
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
