Thus spake Bruce Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Er, malloc(0) is defined as returning either a null pointer or a pointer
to 0 bytes of allocated space. Which one it chooses to return is
implementation-defined, not undefined. C90 has a bogus requirement that
the pointer for malloc(0) be unique,
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, David Schultz wrote:
Thus spake Bruce Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
... C90 has a bogus requirement that
the pointer for malloc(0) be unique, whatever that means. C99 only
requires that the objects pointed to by the results of malloc() be
disjoint, and this is satisfied
Thus spake Bruce Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, David Schultz wrote:
Thus spake Bruce Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
... C90 has a bogus requirement that
the pointer for malloc(0) be unique, whatever that means. C99 only
requires that the objects pointed to by the results
Hi!
A malloc(0) returns always 0x800 on my system. This causes some third-party
software to fail, because they expect malloc(0) to return NULL. Is this a
bug or a feature? malloc(3) doesn't mention anything.
Regards,
Marc
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 04:25:20PM +0100, Marc Recht wrote:
Hi!
A malloc(0) returns always 0x800 on my system. This causes some third-party
software to fail, because they expect malloc(0) to return NULL. Is this a
bug or a feature? malloc(3) doesn't mention anything.
Feature in malloc and
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marc Recht writes:
Hi!
A malloc(0) returns always 0x800 on my system. This causes some third-party
software to fail, because they expect malloc(0) to return NULL. Is this a
bug or a feature? malloc(3) doesn't mention anything.
Then you didnt read malloc(3) well
Feature in malloc and bug in third-party code. C99 says:
[..]
Thanks! Then I'll try to change it in the third-party app...
Also see the V flag listed in malloc(3).
Nice. Maybe I just make it my system's default..
Regards,
Marc
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe
On 2002-11-22 16:25, Marc Recht [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
A malloc(0) returns always 0x800 on my system. This causes some third-party
software to fail, because they expect malloc(0) to return NULL. Is this a
bug or a feature? malloc(3) doesn't mention anything.
malloc(3) does mention
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marc Recht [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: A malloc(0) returns always 0x800 on my system. This causes some third-party
: software to fail, because they expect malloc(0) to return NULL. Is this a
: bug or a feature? malloc(3) doesn't mention anything.
