From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Jul  7 21:34:25 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from noc.demon.net (server.noc.demon.net [193.195.224.4])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5F0014D2A
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed,  7 Jul 1999 21:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from fanf@demon.net)
Received: by noc.demon.net; id FAA01853; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 05:34:16 +0100 (BST)
Received: from fanf.noc.demon.net(195.11.55.83) by inside.noc.demon.net via smap (3.2)
	id xmaa01836; Thu, 8 Jul 99 05:34:05 +0100
Received: from fanf by fanf.noc.demon.net with local (Exim 3.02 #13)
	id 1125st-0001e1-00
	for hackers@freebsd.org; Thu, 08 Jul 1999 05:34:07 +0100
To: hackers@freebsd.org
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Subject: Re: Replacement for grep(1) (part 2)
In-Reply-To: <xzp7locthir.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.9907052110250.13873-100000@uther.wam.umd.edu>
Message-Id: <E1125st-0001e1-00@fanf.noc.demon.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 05:34:07 +0100
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no> wrote:
>
>Don't use err() indiscriminately after a malloc() failure; malloc()
>doesn't set errno.

When I looked at malloc(3) I decided that it relied on sbrk(2) to set
errno if it returned 0. Is this wrong? i.e. can it return 0 without
a failed syscall?

Tony.
-- 
f.a.n.finch   dot@dotat.at   fanf@demon.net
Winner, International Obfuscated C Code Competition 1998


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message