From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 2 14:40:00 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C696F16A4CE for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 14:40:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from laika.ifs.tuwien.ac.at (laika.ifs.tuwien.ac.at [128.131.167.43]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A8BF43D1F for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 14:40:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from stefan@fafoe.narf.at) Received: from fafoe.narf.at (unknown [212.186.3.235]) by laika.ifs.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3964820A9; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 23:42:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from wombat.fafoe.narf.at (wombat.fafoe.narf.at [192.168.1.42]) by fafoe.narf.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id C63A940ED; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 23:39:55 +0100 (CET) Received: by wombat.fafoe.narf.at (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 4453C32A; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 23:39:54 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 23:39:54 +0100 From: Stefan Farfeleder To: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-ID: <20040302223950.GF1021@wombat.fafoe.narf.at> Mail-Followup-To: Poul-Henning Kamp , freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20040301160022.GA13617@VARK.homeunix.com> <59773.1078159051@critter.freebsd.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <59773.1078159051@critter.freebsd.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: standards/62858: malloc(0) not C99 compliant X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Standards compliance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 22:40:00 -0000 On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 05:37:31PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > I want to make sure people who malloc(0) and then deref the pointer get > the core dump they need to debug their problem. So you want malloc(0) to return a different pointer to unmapped memory every time it is called? > But lets turn this around, do you have evidence of code which breaks > with the current behaviour ? I think only conformance checking software will notice this. > Does the code also fail if you give > malloc the 'V' flag ? No, modulo PR bin/62859 where I forgot to CC you :) Cheers, Stefan