Re: [PATCH 2/4] short circuit out of a few places where we would allocate zero bytes
- From
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
- Date
- Dec 28, 2005, 04:38 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Pine.LNX.4.64.0512272036380.14098@g5.osdl.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <43B21312.50603@zytor.com>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Better yet, either always return NULL or allocate 1 byte in that case, to get > consistent behaviour.
Yes. However, if you do the "return NULL" case (which is nicest), you'll have to wrap "free()" too. There are some libraries where passing "free()" a NULL pointer causes a SIGSEGV.
That said, I think that would be preferable to changing the source code to unnecessarily avoid zero-sized allocations. Having a "xfree()" to match "xmalloc()" makes sense.
Linus