On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 07:48:34 -0800 Jim Meyering <j...@meyering.net> wrote: > Does some code assume that V->charclasses != NULL implies > 0 < V->calloc? I would argue that such code is incorrect. I.e., > in the degenerate case (calloc == 0), the code should not > distinguish between a NULL charclasses member and one > that points to a malloc'd buffer of length 0.
Thanks for the pushing. I understood that you said.
