On 12/06/2009 11:22 AM, malc wrote:
Here, i believe, you are inventing artificial restrictions on how malloc behaves, i don't see anything that prevents the implementor from setting aside a range of addresses with 31st bit set as an indicator of "zero" allocations, and then happily giving it to the user of malloc and consumming it in free.
But it has to make it a valid address anyway. If a zero-sized read treats it as invalid (SIGSEGV, EFAULT, whatever), malloc has failed to return a valid address and is not obeying its specification.
Paolo
