Hi
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:49:37 -0700
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yuri Vasilevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Recent versions of sed expect glibc behavior form malloc, i.e.
> > malloc(0) return live pointer. This is not true for uClibc (and many
> > other old/classical libc implementations).
>
> Thanks, but I'd rather not go through the glibc regex implementation
> looking for other instances of this problem; it will be a maintenance
> and reliability hassle.
Personally I think that it may be safer to code in terms of standard
malloc as it's behavior is much more widely implemented and in my
opinion saner, but I understand all the trouble it'll be to check
each malloc regex code.
Also glibc's realloc return NULL if size == 0, so in the places where
realloc is used in regex the case of NULL pointers most be taken care
off in any way.
> Instead, let's substitute a malloc that behaves compatibly with GNU
> malloc.
Thanks for addressing this issue.
Yuri.
PS: I'm not in the CCed lists so I'm not sure this message will get
posted to them.
_______________________________________________
bug-gnulib mailing list
bug-gnulib@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
