From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 28 23:03:44 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAB8F1065670 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:03:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from christoph.mallon@gmx.de) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 28DAB8FC0A for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:03:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from christoph.mallon@gmx.de) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 28 Jan 2009 23:03:42 -0000 Received: from p54A3E68D.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO tron.homeunix.org) [84.163.230.141] by mail.gmx.net (mp058) with SMTP; 29 Jan 2009 00:03:42 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1673122 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/ksFE8BdvkwOLKXAbsQW+OhPF2LaherOIRgA/L3G qM0Vo8XirsqxOM Message-ID: <4980E44D.1040604@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:03:41 +0100 From: Christoph Mallon User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Channa References: <515c64960901280339m17fa9309v2e1bc3f55454ab@mail.gmail.com> <49804597.6040303@gmx.de> <515c64960901280401w1e1d08bfx29adc124bc749c4a@mail.gmail.com> <515c64960901280425y642a190ka31409cfc2a2fd8f@mail.gmail.com> <49804FCE.7090405@gmx.de> <515c64960901280437hd4f7b2dx36a1774afe2f5646@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <515c64960901280437hd4f7b2dx36a1774afe2f5646@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.73 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Jemalloc SEGV for 1MB chunk X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:03:45 -0000 Channa schrieb: > Hi, > Thanks for the reply. > Does the same behaviour seen on FreeBSD environment? > I am using FreeBSD libraries to test the test code. > > So according to you its better to NULL terminate in the test code to avoid > this undefined behaviour? You have to avoid undefined behaviour. The moment you cause undefined behaviour the game is over. BTW: The character is named NUL. NULL is the name of the symbolic null pointer constant.