Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] loader: don't call realloc(O) when no symbols are present

[Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>]

malc <av1474@comtv.ru> writes:

> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>> malc <av1474@comtv.ru> writes:
>> 
>> > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>> >
>> >> malc wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> > > Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> >> > > > This fixes the loading of a stripped kernel with zero malloc disabled.
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > *Raises an eyebrow*
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > Even though there's different perspectives over whether qemu_malloc(0)
>> >> > > should be allowed, inherited from ambiguity over malloc(0),
>> >> > > realloc(p,0) has always had a standard, well-defined meaning.
>> >> > 
>> >> > No.
>> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.std.c/browse_thread/thread/4e9af8847613d71f/6f75ad22e0768a0b?q=realloc++group:comp.std.c#6f75ad22e0768a0b
>> >> 
>> >> Wow, thanks for that.  It's a real surprise.  Looks like C99's own
>> >> rationale is not consistent with itself on the subject, and differs
>> >> from C90 where the "standard, well-defined meaning" I referred to was
>> >> defined.
>> >
>> > Yep.
>> 
>> No, this is a misinterpretation of the C99 standard, made possible by
>> its poor wording.  The C99 Rationale is perfectly clear, though:
>
> You have to show the flaw in Hallvard B Furuseth's analysis to claim
> that it's a misinterpretation. And unlike the standard rationale is
> non normative.
>
> [..snip..]

I did.  If that doesn't convince you, I'll gladly wait for the Technical
Corrigendum that'll put this rather absurd misreading to rest.