Re: Problems with 2006Q3

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 08:54:42AM +0100, Roland Illig wrote:
[skip long explaination]
> This is rather interesting. It looks good, I only fear that the name 
> "-no-std-libs" is a little too generic. It also reminds me of the gcc 
> -nostdlib option, which _might_ be confused with yours. Since yours is a 
> hack especially for Tru64, maybe the option could have "osf1" or "tru64" 
> in its name?

One question remains for me -- why should it not be the default
behaviour? E.g. why should the wrapper not *force* it transparently? 
That would make the need for the option go away.

> Wouldn't it be better to provide the function rpl_malloc yourself? I've 
> looked at the code, and there are many possibilities for passing a zero 
> as the argument of malloc(). On the other hand, if your system's free() 
> happily takes a null pointer, your patch is correct (for your system).

A free(3) which doesn't support being called with a NULL pointer is just
broken. What malloc does for size 0 is implementation defined.
Consistent with the spirit of the standard could be a wrapper which
turns allocations for 0 into allocations of 1, if a program depends on
that.

Joerg