Re: [PATCH 2/4] short circuit out of a few places where we would allocate zero bytes

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

Better yet, either always return NULL or allocate 1 byte in that case, to get
consistent behaviour.

Yes. However, if you do the "return NULL" case (which is nicest), you'll 
have to wrap "free()" too. There are some libraries where passing "free()" 
a NULL pointer causes a SIGSEGV.

That said, I think that would be preferable to changing the source code to 
unnecessarily avoid zero-sized allocations. Having a "xfree()" to match 
"xmalloc()" makes sense. 

		Linus