From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6362 invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2003 14:12:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 6355 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2003 14:12:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Apr 2003 14:12:55 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 194iE9-0002XH-00; Sun, 13 Apr 2003 09:13:01 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 194iDy-0005Ls-00; Sun, 13 Apr 2003 10:12:50 -0400 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 14:12:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch rfc] Make GDB's xmalloc match liberties Message-ID: <20030413141249.GA20541@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3E9760F6.1040704@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E9760F6.1040704@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00262.txt.bz2 On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 08:42:30PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Per recent discussion, this modifies GDB's xmalloc (actually xmmalloc) > so that the behavior matches libiberty's. Seems reasonable to me, on its own. However, is it a bug that we were calling malloc (0) in the first place via NUM_REGS? I know that call has been discussed before but damned if I can remember what the discussion said. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer