Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 21:06:00 -0400
Message-Id: <200107030106.VAA05723@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT envy DOT delorie DOT com using -f
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <T7807.80082$Mf5.22355219@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>
	(tomstdenis AT yahoo DOT com)
Subject: Re: malloc() problem, DJDEV 203
References: <Pine DOT SOL DOT 4 DOT 33 DOT 0107022250120 DOT 27631-100000 AT holyrood DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk> <200107022219 DOT SAA04299 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <Pine DOT SOL DOT 4 DOT 33 DOT 0107030043180 DOT 14632-100000 AT holyrood DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk> <200107022351 DOT TAA05124 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <T7807.80082$Mf5 DOT 22355219 AT news3 DOT rdc1 DOT on DOT home DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


> > 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".

Why?  The standard allows it to fail, but it also allows it to
succeed.  Why shouldn't we return a usable pointer to a zero-length
(well, 8 byte length) buffer?

I'd rather djgpp not be on the list of systems that gratuitously cause
problems for the user, when it's just as easy to do something useful
instead.