Nathan Kennedy wrote:
If saving that one test is worth the risk that MALLOC_0_IS_NONNULL will
always be correctly be defined, e.g. that this will never always be true
for all potential users:
+#ifdef _LIBC
+# define MALLOC_0_IS_NONNULL 1
uClibc defines it too:
libc-symbols.h:#define _LIBC1
On 4/18/2014 1:44 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
the MALLOC_0_IS_NONNULL macro attempting to check for
malloc(0) failure is not needed.
It's not needed for correctness, but it helps performance on GNU
hosts, no? It lets them avoid an unnecessary test "size != 0" at
runtime. The MALLOC_0_IS_NONNULL te
Nathan Kennedy wrote:
I think this dependency can be removed.
Thanks, I installed a patch along those lines.
the MALLOC_0_IS_NONNULL macro attempting to check for
malloc(0) failure is not needed.
It's not needed for correctness, but it helps performance on GNU hosts,
no? It lets them avoi
