Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Date:	Tue, 3 Jul 2001 01:34:46 +0100 (BST)
From:	Daniel Barker <sokal AT holyrood DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk>
To:	<djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: malloc() problem, DJDEV 203
In-Reply-To:	<200107022351.TAA05124@envy.delorie.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SOL.4.33.0107030132070.19125-100000@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
References:	<Pine DOT SOL DOT 4 DOT 33 DOT 0107022250120 DOT 27631-100000 AT holyrood DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk>
	<200107022219 DOT SAA04299 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <Pine DOT SOL DOT 4 DOT 33 DOT 0107030043180 DOT 14632-100000 AT holyrood DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk>
	<200107022351 DOT TAA05124 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

There seems to be another problem as well. Some significantly smaller
requests that are still large enough that they must fail, e.g.,
4294378000U bytes, also cause malloc() to return non-NULL.

I was experimenting to find the exact size at which the problem sets in,
but my computer spontaneously rebooted before I got the answer. I became
nervous and didn't press on.

The operating system is Windows 98 SP1.

On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, DJ Delorie wrote:

>
> > Alternatively, DJGPP malloc() could be changed to return NULL for
> > zero-byte allocations. This is a significant change of behaviour but is
> > allowed by the C standard.
>
> No, there are far too many programs that expect malloc(0) to succeed,
> even if the standard allows it to fail.

-- 
Daniel Barker.

- Raw text -