On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 03:55:12PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> | the current version fails to build on GNU/kFreeBSD.
> |
> | It needs small fixups for munmap hackery and stacktrace.
> | It also needs to exclude linux specific build-depends.
> | Please find attached patch with that.
>
> Tha
Yo all
More thoughts on hostfile usage - I'm sure you are all sitting on
pins-and-needles awaiting more discussion on this exciting topic!
I'm continuing to try and work through the use-cases here so we can get this
fixed. It continues to be an issue for users on the list, as well as our own
deve
On Jul 24, 2007, at 12:02 PM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
Per Lisandro's comments: I think that if you need a random/valid
value for an STL map (or similar), malloc(0) is not a good idea to
use as a key.
OK, regarding comments in this thread, you are completelly right. I am
fine with returning NULL
Per Lisandro's comments: I think that if you need a random/valid
value for an STL map (or similar), malloc(0) is not a good idea to
use as a key.
OK, regarding comments in this thread, you are completelly right. I am
fine with returning NULL.
BTW, should'nt this issue be commented in the standa
Yo all
As you know, I am working on revamping the hostfile functionality to make it
work better with managed environments (at the moment, the two are
exclusive). The issue that we need to review is how we want the interaction
to work, both for the initial launch and for comm_spawn.
In talking wit
On Jul 24, 2007, at 11:01 AM, Adrian Knoth wrote:
Which is also what POSIX says:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/
malloc.html
I vote with gleb -- return NULL, don't set errno, and be done with
I'd like to second. Just if this is a poll ;)
Sounds like a pretty s
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 08:41:27AM -0600, Brian Barrett wrote:
> > man malloc tells me this:
> > "If size was equal to 0, either NULL or a pointer suitable to be
> > passed to free()
> > is returned". So may be we should just return NULL and be done with
> > it?
>
> Which is also what POSIX s
On Jul 24, 2007, at 8:28 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 11:20:11AM -0300, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
On 7/23/07, Jeff Squyres wrote:
Does anyone have any opinions on this? If not, I'll go implement
option #1.
Sorry, Jeff... just reading this. I think your option #1 is the
bett
I agree with Gleb. Calling malloc with size 0 is just bad practice.
As the returned memory is not supposed to be suitable for any use
[fact that we can not verify as there is at least one byte] why
returning anything else than NULL ? Returning NULL will make the
application segfault, which
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 11:20:11AM -0300, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> On 7/23/07, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> > Does anyone have any opinions on this? If not, I'll go implement
> > option #1.
>
> Sorry, Jeff... just reading this. I think your option #1 is the
> better. However, I want to warn you about t
On 7/23/07, Jeff Squyres wrote:
Does anyone have any opinions on this? If not, I'll go implement
option #1.
Sorry, Jeff... just reading this. I think your option #1 is the
better. However, I want to warn you about to issues:
* In my Linux FC6 box, malloc(0) return different pointers for each
11 matches
Mail list logo
