Did not realise that it was implementation-specific.
Never mind then, I will call free explicitly.
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:58:31 +0000
Dimitris Papastamos <sin_AT_2f30.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:11:02AM +0100, Mattias Andrée
> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Mattias Andrée <maandree_AT_kth.se>
> > ---
> > libutil/ealloc.c | 2 +-
> > libutil/reallocarray.c | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/libutil/ealloc.c b/libutil/ealloc.c
> > index 320865d..5a3cce1 100644
> > --- a/libutil/ealloc.c
> > +++ b/libutil/ealloc.c
> > _AT_@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ void *
> > enrealloc(int status, void *p, size_t size)
> > {
> > p = realloc(p, size);
> > - if (!p)
> > + if (!p && size)
> > enprintf(status, "realloc: out of
> > memory\n"); return p;
> > }
> > diff --git a/libutil/reallocarray.c
> > b/libutil/reallocarray.c index c6e5219..b964626 100644
> > --- a/libutil/reallocarray.c
> > +++ b/libutil/reallocarray.c
> > _AT_@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ ereallocarray(void *optr, size_t
> > nmemb, size_t size) {
> > void *p;
> >
> > - if (!(p = reallocarray(optr, nmemb, size)))
> > + if (!(p = reallocarray(optr, nmemb, size)) &&
> > nmemb && size) eprintf("reallocarray: out of memory\n");
> >
> > return p;
>
> This is implementation-defined behaviour, exiting is also
> valid. Don't write code that relies on this idiom.
>
> I am aware we have not documented this behaviour but
> that's minor in my opinion.
>
Received on Thu Mar 17 2016 - 11:12:38 CET