Re: Re: Is AC_FUNC_MALLOC more trouble than it's worth?

[Eric Sunshine]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 16:59:30 +0100 (CET), Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > Another reason to use at least AC_FUNC_REALLOC (and one that motivated
> > me to write the macros and replacement functions) is that on some
> > systems, realloc (p, n) fails when P is NULL.
> Would you happen to know of any (common) systems for which this is a
> problem?

Although no longer common, the problem of realloc() failing when passed a  
null pointer afflicted certain versions of NextStep (even though the  
documentation stated that it was a safe operation).

-- ES