On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 12/06/2009 12:22 PM, 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. > > > > The implementation needs to track which addresses it handed out, since it is > required that malloc(0) != malloc(0) (unless both are NULL).
You haven't read carefully, i said range. -- mailto:av1...@comtv.ru