On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 05:51:07AM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:49:59AM +0200, Chris Lalancette wrote:
> > Hello,
> > For 0.4.3, danpb's new memory management scheme went into libvirt.
> > This is
> > fine, except that is subtly alters the semantics of malloc(),
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:49:59AM +0200, Chris Lalancette wrote:
> Hello,
> For 0.4.3, danpb's new memory management scheme went into libvirt. This
> is
> fine, except that is subtly alters the semantics of malloc(), calloc(), and
> realloc(). In particular, if you say:
>
> foo = malloc(0
Chris Lalancette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For 0.4.3, danpb's new memory management scheme went into libvirt. This
> is
> fine, except that is subtly alters the semantics of malloc(), calloc(), and
> realloc(). In particular, if you say:
>
> foo = malloc(0);
>
> glibc will happily return
Hello,
For 0.4.3, danpb's new memory management scheme went into libvirt. This is
fine, except that is subtly alters the semantics of malloc(), calloc(), and
realloc(). In particular, if you say:
foo = malloc(0);
glibc will happily return a non-NULL pointer to you. However, with the new
m
