* Alejandro Colomar:
> I think everybody agrees that glibc's calloc(3) is conforming to C11,
> and it behaves like my proposal suggests.
>
> alx@debian:~/tmp$ cat c.c
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
>
> int
> main(void)
> {
> printf("%p\n", calloc(0, 42));
> perror("calloc(0, 42)");
>
> printf("%p\n", calloc(42, 0));
> perror("calloc(42, 0)");
>
> printf("%p\n", calloc(0, 0));
> perror("calloc(0, 0)");
> }
> alx@debian:~/tmp$ gcc c.c
> alx@debian:~/tmp$ ./a.out
> 0x564b188332a0
> calloc(0, 42): Success
> 0x564b188338d0
> calloc(42, 0): Success
> 0x564b18833d00
> calloc(0, 0): Success
>
> In any case, I've improved the wording to be more explicit about it.
> See alx-0029r6.
I think the wording still allows calloc (42, 0) to fail with EINVAL (or
some other error code) because 0 is not a valid object size.
Thanks,
Florian
