Re: proper realloc(p,0) behavior?

[Paul Eggert]

On 03/25/2011 12:11 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> the only
> sane thing left for POSIX to do without invalidating glibc would be to
> require that portable applications shall not call realloc(p,0) for
> non-NULL p

That sounds unlikely, since POSIX defers to the C standard.

However, POSIX *could* mark realloc (nonnull, 0) as obsolescent,
just as it marked "gets" obsolescent even though C99 required "gets".
Perhaps the Austin committee would accept that?

Do I understand correctly that all the people in the room (when the
C99 committee decided to require this incompatible change) were people
from Oracle, HP, etc., and that nobody was present to speak
up for GNU or GNU/Linux?  If so, this sounds like a breakdown in
the way that the C99 committee was operating.