On 12/06/2009 01:53 PM, malc wrote:
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.
I did in fact. Consider a loop
malloc(0);
p = malloc(0);
while (1) {
n = malloc(0);
free(p);
p = n;
}
without some form of tracking, you won't be able to return unique
addresses eventually.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
