[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: memset (0, 0, 0);
From: |
Richard Earnshaw |
Subject: |
Re: memset (0, 0, 0); |
Date: |
Tue, 08 Apr 2003 10:29:55 +0100 |
>
> Hi Geoff,
>
> Which xmalloc are you referring to? The xmalloc in this case is a gdb
> internal function, defined in gdb/utils.c:
>
> PTR xmalloc (size_t size)
> {
> return xmmalloc (NULL, size);
> }
>
> And xmmalloc is:
>
> void * xmmalloc (void *md, size_t size)
> {
> void *val;
>
> if (size == 0)
> {
> val = NULL;
> }
> else
> {
> val = mmalloc (md, size);
> if (val == NULL)
> nomem (size);
> }
> return (val);
> }
>
> So size=0 does indeed return NULL. Also, I have single stepped this code to
> verify that this is actually what happens.
It looks as though that implementation of xmalloc doesn't match the
general specification of xmalloc, which is that xmalloc must *never*
return NULL (see libiberty/xmalloc.c for the specification).
I'm not sure why gdb is trying to provide its own implementation of these
functions and not use those in libiberty. Andrew?
R.
- Re: memset (0, 0, 0);, (continued)
- Re: memset (0, 0, 0);, Andreas Schwab, 2003/04/04
- Re: memset (0, 0, 0);, Petr Vandrovec, 2003/04/04
- RE: memset (0, 0, 0);, Thomas,Stephen, 2003/04/07
- Re: memset (0, 0, 0);, Wolfram Gloger, 2003/04/07
- Re: memset (0, 0, 0);, Daniel Jacobowitz, 2003/04/07
- Re: memset (0, 0, 0);, Geoff Keating, 2003/04/07
- RE: memset (0, 0, 0);, Thomas,Stephen, 2003/04/07
- RE: memset (0, 0, 0);, Thomas,Stephen, 2003/04/08
- Re: memset (0, 0, 0);,
Richard Earnshaw <=