https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27797
--- Comment #6 from Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> --- (In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #5) Hi Tom, > I think what realloc does when passed a 0 size is implementation-defined. Ah - I did wonder about that. > It may call free, but it may not. So, I think some other change is > needed, because with the current code you either get a double free > or a memory leak, depending on the underlying malloc implementation. Personally I am not too worried about memory leaks. There are quite a few of them still in the sources, but I do not see why they get raised as issues from tiemn to time. None of the binutils tools are long running, so why worry about a little bit of memory leaking ? That is just my opinion though. > One simple thing to do would be like "if (size == 0) size = 1" > to avoid the problem entirely. That is a good idea. I will try out a patch with that change, and see if it breaks anything. Cheers Nick -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
