Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 19:55:15 +0900 From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: malloc(0) returns an invalid address Message-ID: <y7vllchnf58.wl@ocean.jinmei.org> In-Reply-To: <41AEF204.2070402@freebsd.org> References: <y7vfz2qpltw.wl@ocean.jinmei.org> <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKMEAKADAB.davids@webmaster.com> <y7v1xe9p87u.wl@ocean.jinmei.org> <41AEF204.2070402@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:44:20 +0100, >>>>> Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> said: >> I expected the answer:-) This is probably a matter of the definition >> of "validness", and I won't argue about this point. (and, of course, >> it cannot be justified to dereference a zero-length pointer, whether >> the result is segfault or not) >> >> BTW: the "same problem" (of segfault) does actually NOT occur with >> malloc(1) and int * on FreeBSD 5.3 (i386). I suspect malloc(3) takes >> a special action with the size of zero. > man malloc(3) and look for options 'V' and 'X'. I've already done this, and, sorry, this is irrelevant to this problem. JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?y7vllchnf58.wl>