Richard L. Hamilton wrote: > Shouldn't this use MAP_ANON and an fd arg of -1 rather than explicitly > opening /dev/zero? One less thing to go wrong, > two less statements and syscalls, typically. > > Also, why ask for just one byte, since you presumably get a whole page anyway? > Why not explicitly ask for enough to hold the largest fundamental type? If > people are going to do something stupid like this, they > might well be dereferencing _any_ sort of pointer, not just char *. Obviously > that could be a pointer to a struct or whatever too, but that's an open-ended > situation, wherein trying to anticipate the scope of the foolishness leads to > madness. Granted though that passing a NULL to something expecting a > string is perhaps the most common, and [EMAIL PROTECTED] at least allows one > to work > around that.
I could but then it would mask even more problems than [EMAIL PROTECTED] does today and that might not be a good thing. At the end of the day attempting to dereference NULL is a bug in the source and it really should dump core so it can be fixed. I've considered creating an alternative to using [EMAIL PROTECTED] since I find that most of the time I need it is for compatibility with glibc behaviour of the printf family, so having an LD_PRELOAD that just copied their behaviour would be helpful. Or may it could be done like the xpg-values.o stuff. -- Darren J Moffat _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
