From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NHFxr-0001ti-Do
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 06 Dec 2009 07:11:47 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NHFxo-0001t2-E5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 06 Dec 2009 07:11:45 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53173 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NHFxn-0001sm-M8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 06 Dec 2009 07:11:43 -0500
Received: from fe02x03-cgp.akado.ru ([77.232.31.165]:64466 helo=akado.ru)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <av1474@comtv.ru>) id 1NHFxn-0005xu-9D
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 06 Dec 2009 07:11:43 -0500
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 15:11:40 +0300 (MSK)
From: malc <av1474@comtv.ru>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Permit zero-sized qemu_malloc() & friends
In-Reply-To: <4B1B9E6A.2000904@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0912061509140.9318@linmac.oyster.ru>
References: <m3skbwxgkp.fsf@crossbow.pond.sub.org>
	<4B193DA5.6040507@codemonkey.ws>
	<m3zl5x1q5x.fsf@crossbow.pond.sub.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0912051957430.3457@linmac.oyster.ru>
	<m31vj8zg8s.fsf@crossbow.pond.sub.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0912061132190.8894@linmac.oyster.ru>
	<m3bpicwk8r.fsf@crossbow.pond.sub.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0912061302550.9087@linmac.oyster.ru>
	<4B1B8A08.3060704@redhat.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0912061453290.9249@linmac.oyster.ru>
	<4B1B9E6A.2000904@redhat.com>
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: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Avi Kivity wrote:

> On 12/06/2009 01:53 PM, malc wrote:
> > On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > 
> >    
> > > On 12/06/2009 12:22 PM, malc wrote:
> > >      
> > > > Here, i believe, you are inventing artificial restrictions on how
> > > > malloc behaves, i don't see anything that prevents the implementor
> > > > from setting aside a range of addresses with 31st bit set as an
> > > > indicator of "zero" allocations, and then happily giving it to the
> > > > user of malloc and consumming it in free.
> > > > 
> > > >        
> > > The implementation needs to track which addresses it handed out, since it
> > > is
> > > required that malloc(0) != malloc(0) (unless both are NULL).
> > >      
> > You haven't read carefully, i said range.
> >    
> 
> I did in fact.  Consider a loop
> 
>   malloc(0);
>   p = malloc(0);
>   while (1) {
>       n = malloc(0);
>       free(p);
>       p = n;
>   }
> 
> without some form of tracking, you won't be able to return unique addresses
> eventually.

So? There will be tracking, it's the same as with OpenBSD where
allocations of zero and greater than zero are handled differently.

-- 
mailto:av1474@comtv.ru