Tim Peters <tim.one@comcast.net> writes: > [Martin] > > I think I'm now getting to the root of your confusion. Calling > > malloc(1) is *not* what Guido wants. Instead, he wants that > > py_malloc(0) returns a non-null pointer "normally". > > And there's no better way to be 100% clear about what that means than to > specify a trivial implementation that satisfies it. There could be, but perhaps there isn't. Such an implementation is an overspecification: If a platform already guarantees that malloc(0) acts as if it was passed a non-zero argument, there is no need to pass 1; passing 1 may have undesirable side effects. Regards, Martin
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