Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] loader: don't call realloc(O) when no symbols are present

[malc]

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Markus Armbruster wrote:

> malc <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> >
> >> malc wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > > Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >> > > > This fixes the loading of a stripped kernel with zero malloc 
> >> > > > disabled.
> >> > > 
> >> > > *Raises an eyebrow*
> >> > > 
> >> > > Even though there's different perspectives over whether qemu_malloc(0)
> >> > > should be allowed, inherited from ambiguity over malloc(0),
> >> > > realloc(p,0) has always had a standard, well-defined meaning.
> >> > 
> >> > No.
> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.std.c/browse_thread/thread/4e9af8847613d71f/6f75ad22e0768a0b?q=realloc++group:comp.std.c#6f75ad22e0768a0b
> >> 
> >> Wow, thanks for that.  It's a real surprise.  Looks like C99's own
> >> rationale is not consistent with itself on the subject, and differs
> >> from C90 where the "standard, well-defined meaning" I referred to was
> >> defined.
> >
> > Yep.
> 
> No, this is a misinterpretation of the C99 standard, made possible by
> its poor wording.  The C99 Rationale is perfectly clear, though:

You have to show the flaw in Hallvard B Furuseth's analysis to claim
that it's a misinterpretation. And unlike the standard rationale is
non normative.

[..snip..]

-- 
mailto:address@hidden