From:	"Tom St Denis" <tomstdenis AT yahoo DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References:	<Pine DOT SOL DOT 4 DOT 33 DOT 0107022250120 DOT 27631-100000 AT holyrood DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk> <200107022219 DOT SAA04299 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <Pine DOT SOL DOT 4 DOT 33 DOT 0107030043180 DOT 14632-100000 AT holyrood DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk> <200107022351 DOT TAA05124 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: malloc() problem, DJDEV 203
Lines:	19
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Newsreader:	Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000
Message-ID:	<T7807.80082$Mf5.22355219@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>
Date:	Tue, 03 Jul 2001 00:14:43 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host:	24.112.8.23
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT home DOT net
X-Trace:	news3.rdc1.on.home.com 994119283 24.112.8.23 (Mon, 02 Jul 2001 17:14:43 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Mon, 02 Jul 2001 17:14:43 PDT
Organization:	Excite AT Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

"DJ Delorie" <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote in message
news:200107022351 DOT TAA05124 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com...
>
> > Alternatively, DJGPP malloc() could be changed to return NULL for
> > zero-byte allocations. This is a significant change of behaviour but is
> > allowed by the C standard.
>
> No, there are far too many programs that expect malloc(0) to succeed,
> even if the standard allows it to fail.

While I agree that seems practical it isn't "a good thing".

What if we find another flaw in GCC ... shall we keep it because people have
been using it?

Tom

- Raw text -