Re: Is AC_FUNC_MALLOC more trouble than it's worth?

[Ronald Landheer-Cieslak]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Ronald Landheer-Cieslak <address@hidden> writes:
>>> I have never (so far) tried to allocate a block of 0 bytes willingly
>> In that case you don't need those macros.  They're mainly useful for
>> programs that want malloc(0) to return a nonnull pointer.
> Another reason to use at least AC_FUNC_REALLOC (and one that motivated
> me to write the macros and replacement functions) is that on some systems,
> realloc (p, n) fails when P is NULL.
Right - guess I'm back off experimenting, then.

Would you happen to know of any (common) systems for which this is a 
problem? (just so I can get an idea of what kind of priority I should give 
this - I've been having a bit of trouble using the replacement realloc in 
a C++ program)

Thanx!

rlc