On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Earnie Boyd wrote: > Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: >> On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Jim Meyering wrote: >>>Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>Ronald Landheer-Cieslak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>>>I have never (so far) tried to allocate a block of 0 bytes willingly >>>>In that case you don't need those macros. They're mainly useful for >>>>programs that want malloc(0) to return a nonnull pointer. >>>Another reason to use at least AC_FUNC_REALLOC (and one that motivated >>>me to write the macros and replacement functions) is that on some systems, >>>realloc (p, n) fails when P is NULL. >> Right - guess I'm back off experimenting, then. >> Would you happen to know of any (common) systems for which this is a >> problem? (just so I can get an idea of what kind of priority I should give >> this - I've been having a bit of trouble using the replacement realloc in >> a C++ program) > Win32 systems, both realloc and free. As always, Windoze is a definite pain in the B-hind. It's one of my major target platforms too..
Thanx for the feedback, folks! Ronald
