> I'd say go for the x* solution,
>
> -Otto
Sure. When I looked at this again there are also realloc() return
value checks missing, so I added xcalloc(), xmalloc() and xrealloc().
An old (unused) function yy_flex_xmalloc() gets removed. When building
this I checked the resulting .o files
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:07:32AM +0800, Michael Mikonos wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 02:58:47PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 08:32:04PM +0800, Michael Mikonos wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I noticed that flex is too trusting and assumes
> > > calloc/malloc
On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 02:58:47PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 08:32:04PM +0800, Michael Mikonos wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I noticed that flex is too trusting and assumes
> > calloc/malloc will always succeed. Hopefully I
> > caught all of them.
> > I tried to follow
On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 08:32:04PM +0800, Michael Mikonos wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I noticed that flex is too trusting and assumes
> calloc/malloc will always succeed. Hopefully I
> caught all of them.
> I tried to follow the existing idiom of
> calling flexerror() and passing strings via
> the _()
Hello,
I noticed that flex is too trusting and assumes
calloc/malloc will always succeed. Hopefully I
caught all of them.
I tried to follow the existing idiom of
calling flexerror() and passing strings via
the _() macro. OK?
- Michael
Index: dfa.c