On Jul 24, 2007, at 8:28 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 11:20:11AM -0300, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
>> On 7/23/07, Jeff Squyres <jsquyres_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> Does anyone have any opinions on this? If not, I'll go implement
>>> option #1.
>>
>> Sorry, Jeff... just reading this. I think your option #1 is the
>> better. However, I want to warn you about to issues:
>>
>> * In my Linux FC6 box, malloc(0) return different pointers for each
>> call. In fact, I believe this is a requeriment for malloc, in the
>> case
> man malloc tells me this:
> "If size was equal to 0, either NULL or a pointer suitable to be
> passed to free()
> is returned". So may be we should just return NULL and be done with
> it?
Which is also what POSIX says:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/malloc.html
I vote with gleb -- return NULL, don't set errno, and be done with
it. The way I read the advice to implementors, this would be a legal
response to a 0 byte request.
Brian
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}