Hi Janne,
Since size_t is unsigned, just test (size == 0). Otherwise Ok. Thanks
for the patch.
OK.
Übertrage Daten ...
Revision 175880 übertragen.
Thanks for the review!
Thomas
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 21:31, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Is this better?
Index: runtime/memory.c
===
--- runtime/memory.c(Revision 175598)
+++ runtime/memory.c(Arbeitskopie)
@@ -54,8 +54,8 @@ get_mem (size_t n)
void *
internal_
Am 01.07.2011 14:34, schrieb Janne Blomqvist:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 21:09, Thomas Koenig wrote:
Good point. I have done so in the attached patch
Seems you forgot to attach it.. ;)
Oops, I hadn't realized your crystal ball was broken :-)
Is this better?
Thomas
2011-06-30 Thom
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 21:09, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Good point. I have done so in the attached patch
Seems you forgot to attach it.. ;)
--
Janne Blomqvist
Hi Janne,
I'd prefer to add the zero check to runtime/memory.c
(internal_malloc_size), i.e. change
if (size == 0)
return NULL;
to
if (size == 0)
size = 1;
Good point. I have done so in the attached patch, plus removed
all special cases for checking for zero size.
Regression-tested.
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 00:50, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Hello world,
>
> looking at PR 49479 and other functions in the library made me realize
> there are lots of places where we don't malloc one byte for empty
> arrays.
I'd prefer to add the zero check to runtime/memory.c
(internal_malloc_size),
Hello world,
looking at PR 49479 and other functions in the library made me realize
there are lots of places where we don't malloc one byte for empty
arrays.
This patch is an attempt at fixing the ton of regressions likely
caused by this (like in the PR) which haven't been found yet.
No test cas
