Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 19:51:24 -0400
Message-Id: <200107022351.TAA05124@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT envy DOT delorie DOT com using -f
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <Pine.SOL.4.33.0107030043180.14632-100000@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
	(message from Daniel Barker on Tue, 3 Jul 2001 00:47:33 +0100 (BST))
Subject: Re: malloc() problem, DJDEV 203
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>
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
Precedence: bulk


> 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.