Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA5875 ; Fri, 01 Jan 93 01:59:28 EST Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!uunet!pipex!bnr.co.uk!uknet!ieunet!dec4ie.ieunet.ie!jkh From: jkh@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: [386bsd] GNU malloc in favor of BSD malloc in libc - shall we vote? Message-ID: <JKH.93Jan3165528@whisker.lotus.ie> Date: 3 Jan 93 16:55:28 GMT References: <1hvu79INNjqq@ftp.UU.NET> <1993Jan1.001332.15123@serval.net.wsu.edu> <1i0cnoINNiu2@life.ai.mit.edu> <C05wCD.Bp0@demon.co.uk> Sender: usenet@ieunet.ie (USENET News System) Organization: Lotus Development Ireland Lines: 9 In-Reply-To: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk's message of 1 Jan 93 06: 21:48 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: whisker.lotus.ie It's unfortunate that GNU ld relies on malloc(0) to work. I've modified GNU malloc to round zero size requests to 1, if STRICT_MALLOC isn't defined. It's not a good solution, by any means, but it beats (for the moment) tracking down the erroneous behavior in GNU ld. Jordan -- Jordan Hubbard Lotus Development Ireland jkh@whisker.lotus.ie I DO NOT SPEAK FOR LOTUS - IT HAS PLENTY OF LAWYERS TO DO THAT FOR IT ALREADY