There was some discussion about how to handle malloc(0) a year or so ago. I don't remember if it was on webkit-dev, but you might want to check the archives. Eric Seidel might remember what conclusions (if any) we came to.
Adam On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Myles C. Maxfield <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > I'm compiling WebKit with a malloc() implementation that returns NULL > for malloc(0). According to C99, this is valid: "If the size of the > space requested is zero, the behavior is implementation- defined: > either a null pointer is returned, or the behavior is as if the size > were some nonzero value, except that the returned pointer shall not be > used to access an object." > > I noticed that this caused a problem in one particular place > (WTF::StringImpl::getData16SlowCase()) where the code allocates > (constant * length) bytes for an (empty) string, and provides an > accessor that exposes this pointer. This pointer was being passed to > ICU, which didn't perform the requested function because it looked > like one of the arguments was invalid, even though it was just empty. > > I have worked around this one particular occurrence in my local > version of WebKit fork, but I'm wondering how often this pattern > occurs. Is my fix worth upstreaming? Is it worth trying to find, > "fix," and upstream every occurrence of this pattern? Or is this > particular behavior of malloc() an unstated requirement of building > WebKit? If the latter is true, perhaps it's worth explicitly stating > this somewhere? What is the opinion of the community? > > Thanks, > Myles > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
