Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA5809 ; Fri, 01 Jan 93 01:56:32 EST Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!uunet!pipex!demon!gtoal From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) Subject: Re: [386bsd] GNU malloc in favor of BSD malloc in libc - shall we vote? Message-ID: <C05wCD.Bp0@demon.co.uk> Sender: news@demon.co.uk Nntp-Posting-Host: pizzabox.demon.co.uk Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous References: <1hvu79INNjqq@ftp.UU.NET> <1993Jan1.001332.15123@serval.net.wsu.edu> <1i0cnoINNiu2@life.ai.mit.edu> Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 06:21:48 GMT Lines: 16 In article <1i0cnoINNiu2@life.ai.mit.edu> mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes: :In article <1993Jan1.001332.15123@serval.net.wsu.edu> hlu@eecs.wsu.edu :(H.J. Lu) writes: :> Another `feature' in GNU malloc is malloc (0) returns NULL. :According to ANSI, malloc(0) is implementation-defined. I believe some :systems intentionally return a bogus(?) address so that sloppy programs :don't have to think about it. : :Obviously, you can't write or read at the address returned by malloc(0) :anyway; what difference can it really make? It makes a difference when you realloc. NULL is fine by me though. Relying on a pointer to a piece of memory that you can't access seems to me to be even more sloppy. G