[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: git
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] short circuit out of a few places where we would
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa () zytor ! com>
Date: 2005-12-28 16:58:51
Message-ID: 43B2C44B.1070102 () zytor ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>>Better yet, either always return NULL or allocate 1 byte in that case, to get
>>consistent behaviour.
>
> Yes. However, if you do the "return NULL" case (which is nicest), you'll
> have to wrap "free()" too. There are some libraries where passing "free()"
> a NULL pointer causes a SIGSEGV.
>
> That said, I think that would be preferable to changing the source code to
> unnecessarily avoid zero-sized allocations. Having a "xfree()" to match
> "xmalloc()" makes sense.
>
Yeah, although that might break GNU code which uses xmalloc that is
included (GNU doesn't have xfree.) The easiest is just to allocate 1
byte when the user asks for 0.
Anyone knows what GNU xmalloc does?
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic