From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 05:36:23 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Prevent malloc with size 0
In-Reply-To: <201204012312.35363.vapier@gentoo.org>
References: <4CC006B1.8000905@intracomdefense.com>
	<CALButCJgBNsyjtH8OCMsSoosS0F4orv1w7cpRDg2Of0PBpCiDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<201204012312.35363.vapier@gentoo.org>
Message-ID: <201204020536.23204.marek.vasut@gmail.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Dear Mike Frysinger,

> On Sunday 01 April 2012 20:25:44 Graeme Russ wrote:
> > b) The code calling malloc(0) is making a perfectly legitimate assumption
> > 
> >    based on how glibc handles malloc(0)
> 
> not really.  POSIX says malloc(0) is implementation defined (so it may
> return a unique address, or it may return NULL).  no userspace code
> assuming malloc(0) will return non-NULL is correct.

Which is your implementation-defined ;-) But I have to agree with this one. So 
my vote is for returning NULL.

> -mike

Best regards,
Marek Vasut