On Friday, October 22, 2010 12:40:07 Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote on 2010/10/22 17:18:05:
On Friday, October 22, 2010 04:34:52 Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Don't you want to know if the app screwed up or if the system is out of memory?
The only upside to malloc(0) == NULL I can see is an extra check for apps for which size == 0 is an error to the app too(something the app should have checked itself long before calling malloc).
if an app is doing malloc(0), it is broken. i'm really not worried at all
In your opinion, not mine and not POSIX either. I outlined uses for malloc(0) earlier.
i havent seen any realistic usage examples. the only ones you quoted could easily be solved in a different way assuming they were even affected by malloc(0).
about detecting OOM state. my real world experience thus far has shown no actual problems with this behavior. so unless you have some actual examples where this behavior "harms" u-boot, i say we merge the OP's patch.
Since you think an app is broken if it does malloc(0), it should not matter what malloc(0) returns to you. You only gain an extra error check for the broken app at the expense of ease of use and sane error checking in general.
more like you notice that the code is broken right away. the few times i have seen a malloc(0), it was do to errors elsewhere in the code and once those were fixed, malloc() wasnt called with a size 0.
I prefer not to make it easier for broken apps when it hurts elsewhere.
funny, i can use the same logic to ban malloc(0). it makes you notice & fix errors without penalties.
Ah, IT changed some settings globally. I changed it back. I hope this reply is better.
yes, this is much better. thanks ! -mike