Hi Eric, 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. Have a lovely day! Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
