Re: proper realloc(p,0) behavior?

[Eric Blake]

On 03/25/2011 02:21 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 03/25/2011 12:11 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> the only
>> sane thing left for POSIX to do without invalidating glibc would be to
>> require that portable applications shall not call realloc(p,0) for
>> non-NULL p
> 
> That sounds unlikely, since POSIX defers to the C standard.
> 
> However, POSIX *could* mark realloc (nonnull, 0) as obsolescent,
> just as it marked "gets" obsolescent even though C99 required "gets".
> Perhaps the Austin committee would accept that?

I've proposed just that:
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=400#c726

> 
> Do I understand correctly that all the people in the room (when the
> C99 committee decided to require this incompatible change) were people
> from Oracle, HP, etc., and that nobody was present to speak
> up for GNU or GNU/Linux?  If so, this sounds like a breakdown in
> the way that the C99 committee was operating.

I certainly was not in the room for that meeting.  It does indeed sound
like a breakdown in the C99 committee, but I have no idea how to rectify
that (while membership in the Austin Group for affecting POSIX is quite
easy for free software developers, my impression is that membership in
the C99 committee requires more effort).

-- 
Eric Blake   address@hidden    +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature