In message <4034E80C.5060505_at_kientzle.com>, Tim Kientzle writes: >Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> In message <4034700C.9090107_at_kientzle.com>, Tim Kientzle writes: >> >>>Aborting the program >>>on a failure to allocate memory is pretty clearly a violation >>>of the standard, which requires the malloc function to >>>always return. >> >> There is neither requirements nor guarantees how any function in >> the ansi/iso regime reacts if you grossly violate the API or stomp >> on random memory. > >If malloc's internal data structures are corrupted, I >completely agree that a prompt abort is appropriate. > >My concern is that the current 'A' flag aborts on a failure >to allocate, which is not a "gross violation" of the API. Right, it's my mistake that this was still there, it should have been removed a couple of years ago. It is removed in the patch I posted earlier. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk_at_FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.Received on Thu Feb 19 2004 - 08:43:34 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:43 UTC