> On 06.05.2016, at 18:36, Theo de Raadt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If OpenBSD's behavior of asprintf is non-standard and everyone else is >> doing it differently, we would probably have to apply the patch. But this >> would also affect many other places in the tree were we rely on our >> asprintf semantics. > > Actually, we have fixed all usage cases in our tree to be portable. > > I have wondered in the past whether we should set the pointer to (void > *)-1 instead of NULL, because this NULL return is a trap. >
I think enforcing it this way would make much sense. I'm a candidate for such traps as I only develop C code on/for OpenBSD. OK, this makes Hiltjo's diff a valid addition. Reyk
