From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Dec  2 11:30:26 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E70A016A4CE
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu,  2 Dec 2004 11:30:26 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from nutty.inf.ed.ac.uk (nutty.inf.ed.ac.uk [129.215.216.3])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EC0243D1D
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu,  2 Dec 2004 11:30:26 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from richard@inf.ed.ac.uk)
Received: from macintosh.inf.ed.ac.uk (macintosh.inf.ed.ac.uk
	[129.215.164.64])
	by nutty.inf.ed.ac.uk (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id iB2BUHPj017281;
	Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:30:17 GMT
Received: by macintosh.inf.ed.ac.uk (Postfix, from userid 501)
	id 79B3F1B43CC; Thu,  2 Dec 2004 11:30:17 +0000 (GMT)
From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" <allbery@ece.cmu.edu>,
	=?UTF-8?Q?=E5=93=89?= <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
In-Reply-To: Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH's message of Thu, 02 Dec 2004 00:56:17
	-0500
Organization: just say no
X-Mailer: Ream 5.1.51-richard-mac
Message-Id: <20041202113017.79B3F1B43CC@macintosh.inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu,  2 Dec 2004 11:30:17 +0000 (GMT)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 13:22:17 +0000
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: malloc(0) returns an invalid address
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:30:27 -0000

> malloc() is required to return memory aligned for any fundamental C
> type regardless of the amount of memory allocated (i.e. malloc(1) isn't
> permitted to return an odd address on hardware where types larger than
> (char) must be aligned).

How could a conforming program tell the difference?

(And so, why isn't it legal under the as-if rule?)

-- Richard