Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 24 Feb 2001 21:48:27 +0100
From:      Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>
To:        seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach)
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Setting memory allocators for library functions. 
Message-ID:  <9469.983047707@critter>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:43:47 CST." <200102242043.f1OKhl618691@guild.plethora.net> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200102242043.f1OKhl618691@guild.plethora.net>, Peter Seebach writes
:
>In message <9402.983047348@critter>, Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
>>>Well, no, but the sole available definition of "portable" says that it is
>>>"portable" to assume that all the memory malloc can return is really
>>>available.
>
>>No, this is not a guarantee.
>
>Yes, it is.  If the memory isn't available, malloc returns NULL.

The guarantee is "If malloc returns NULL there is no memory you can use".

That doesn't mean that just because != NULL is returned that memory
will in fact be available.

--
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

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




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9469.983047707>