Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> If we do handle it up-front, then I think we'd actually want:
>
> if (!size) {
> free(ptr);
> return xmalloc(0);
> }
>
> (i.e., to never return NULL for consistency with xmalloc() and
> xcalloc()).
Makes sense. I suspect that this is optimizing for a wrong case,
but in practice that should not matter. Not having to worry about
a request to resize to 0-byte in the remainder of the function is
actually a plus for readability, I would say.
>> > @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ void *xrealloc(void *ptr, size_t size)
>> > memory_limit_check(size, 0);
>> > ret = realloc(ptr, size);
>> > if (!ret && !size)
>> > - ret = realloc(ptr, 1);
>> > + ret = realloc(ret, 1);
>>
>> I appreciate all the additional context for such a small change.
>
> Somebody's got to complete with you for ratio of commit message to diff
> lines. :)
>
> -Peff
