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

[Ronald Landheer-Cieslak]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
>> 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)
> Win32 systems, both realloc and free.
As always, Windoze is a definite pain in the B-hind. It's one of my major 
target platforms too..

Thanx for the feedback, folks!

Ronald