Hi Eric, On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 07:36:01PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 03:16:06PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > > > @@ New footnote XXX > > > > +XXX) > > > > +While atypical, > > > > +<b>realloc</b> may fail > > > > +for a call that shrinks the block of memory. > > > > > > Is it worth wording this as "may fail or return a different pointer > > > for a call that shrinks the block of memory"? > > > > Yeah, we can add that. > > I've changed my mind; the current wording of ISO C makes it that all > realloc(3) successful return values are new pointers, and it doesn't > seem to mention that the old pointer could be kept (I remember having > seen such text in older standards, I think; or maybe in POSIX), so let's > keep in that sense, and assume that realloc(3) always moves the memory, > even if sometimes it doesn't, as that is not observable by a conforming > program.
Oh, the text is still there; I didn't see it. :)
The realloc function returns a pointer to the new object
(which can have the same value as a pointer to the old object),
or a null pointer if the new object has not been allocated
I think I'll just remove that parenthetical, since it serves little
purpose.
Cheers,
Alex
--
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
