Hi Vincent, On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 02:36:13PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2025-06-19 12:54:52 +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > +BUGS > > + Programmers would naturally expect that realloc(p, n) is consis‐ > > + tent with free(p) and malloc(n). This is not explicitly re‐ > > + quired by POSIX.1‐2024, but all conforming implementations are > > + consistent with that. > > + > > + The glibc implementation of realloc() is not consistent with > > + that, and as a consequence, it is dangerous to call > > + realloc(p, 0) in glibc. > > + > > + A trivial workaround for glibc is calling it as > > + realloc(p, n?:1). > > n?:1 is a GNU extension: > > warning: ISO C forbids omitting the middle term of a ‘?:’ expression > [-Wpedantic] > > with gcc -pedantic -std=c23, and such code should not be given in > examples (as a workaround should still be valid for portable code).
Hmmm, I guess I can write it as n?n:1. I'll write a proposal to standardize ?: in ISO C too. Have a lovely day! Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
