Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:05:33 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: malloc(0) behaviour On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 06:17:47PM +0100, Igmar Palsenberg wrote: > Hi, > > Is there a (good) reason for Musl to follow glibc's malloc(0) > behaviour ? Musl returns a valid pointer, which is fine according to > the standard, but returning NULL is also fine. 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). I don't want to try to remember all the details at the moment (they're enough to make your brain hurt..) but here are some links to get you started on the issue: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/dr_400.htm http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=400 http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12547 Rich
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.