Xref: utzoo comp.std.c:974 comp.lang.c:17328
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!andante!alice!andrew
From: andrew@alice.UUCP (Andrew Hume)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: realloc
Summary: justification reqested
Message-ID: <9122@alice.UUCP>
Date: 31 Mar 89 05:31:06 GMT
References: <10170@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <10032@ihlpb.ATT.COM> <9974@megaron.arizona.edu>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ
Lines: 6



gregg townsend reminds us of the pANS ``feature'' that malloc(0) returns NULL.
can anyone provide the (or any) justification of this pointless stupid
definition? i just love the idea that an initialised pointer is SOMETIMES
indistinguishable from an uninitialised pointer.