From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NIUCL-0006g7-4E
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:35:49 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NIUCG-0006bo-46
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:35:48 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40288 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NIUCG-0006bf-1P
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:35:44 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:6673)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1NIUCF-0001PS-Kd
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:35:43 -0500
From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Do not abort on qemu_malloc(0) in production
	builds
References: <1260385471-8561-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>
	<m3iqcgt09f.fsf@crossbow.pond.sub.org>
	<4B2010A6.5030400@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:35:38 +0100
In-Reply-To: <4B2010A6.5030400@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (Anthony Liguori's message
	of "Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:03:34 -0600")
Message-ID: <m3hbrzrfth.fsf@crossbow.pond.sub.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>

Anthony Liguori <aliguori@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> This still aborts on qemu_realloc(NULL, 0), even with
>> CONFIG_ZERO_MALLOC.  Intentional?
>>   
> I guess not.  Should it?  Seems like a very strange case..

It is a strange case, but I think the point of this commit is not to
abort on conditions perceived strange ;)

I think it should follow C89 and behave exactly like qemu_malloc(0).