Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:22:16 -0500 From: Strake <strake888@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: malloc(0) behaviour On 14/01/2013, Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote: > Yes, there are many good reasons. The most obvious (but stupid) one is > that a huge number of programs will "replace" malloc with one where > malloc(0) returns something other than a null pointer if the system's > malloc(0) returns null, and this adds both bloat and risk of > bugs/breakage from the replacement. But there are other much more > fundamental reasons too. Basically they all come down to interactions > between the requirements of malloc and realloc, and the fact that > returning a null pointer from realloc means failure (and thus that the > original object was not freed). Another: Null means allocation failure. As malloc ought to never fail to find zero bytes free, it thus makes sense to return a non-null pointer. Cheers, Strake
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.