>> Sorry, but this is nuts, and Martin is right that I don't want Python >> to offer a "malloc wrapper" that doesn't meet the standard rules >> for malloc. Instead I intend to change the docs to say that Py_Malloc(0) >> acts like platform malloc(1), and leave it at that. [martin@v.loewis.de] > That, OTOH, is not what Guido wants it to be. Guido wants Py_Malloc to > return 0 *only* in case of failure; allocating 0 bytes should > "normally" succeed. I still cannot see what problems you have with > this requirement. I'm not following this at all. Calling malloc(1) does exactly what Guido wants. "malloc(1)" isn't a broken Unix manpage reference, if that's how you're reading it; it means call malloc with an argument of 1.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4