------- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-05 05:36 ------- (In reply to comment #1)
> Why there is a negative check? Well, I do not know. I also can speculate about > a poor man's overflow check, which sometimes indeed works, but often fails. I suspect that you are being generous and that this is rather a sin of omission rather than commission. > Paul, what do you think? I think that your arguments are correct. > > (PS: POSIX Allows "ptr = malloc(0); free(ptr)", where "malloc(0)" returns > either NULL or a unique pointer.) Indeed. Paul -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42958
