svn commit: branches/uClibc_0_9_29/extra/Configs
vapier at uclibc.org
vapier at uclibc.org
Sat Jan 5 17:39:03 UTC 2008
Author: vapier
Date: 2008-01-05 09:39:03 -0800 (Sat, 05 Jan 2008)
New Revision: 20772
Log:
Merge r19909 by aldot from trunk:
- spelling fix
Modified:
branches/uClibc_0_9_29/extra/Configs/Config.in
Changeset:
Modified: branches/uClibc_0_9_29/extra/Configs/Config.in
===================================================================
--- branches/uClibc_0_9_29/extra/Configs/Config.in 2008-01-05 17:38:01 UTC (rev 20771)
+++ branches/uClibc_0_9_29/extra/Configs/Config.in 2008-01-05 17:39:03 UTC (rev 20772)
@@ -423,7 +423,7 @@
help
The behavior of malloc(0) is listed as implementation-defined by
SuSv3. Glibc returns a valid pointer to something, while uClibc
- normally return a NULL. I personally feel glibc's behavior is
+ normally returns NULL. I personally feel glibc's behavior is
not particularly safe, and allows buggy applications to hide very
serious problems.
@@ -431,7 +431,7 @@
return a live pointer when someone calls malloc(0). This pointer
provides a malloc'ed area with a size of 1 byte. This feature is
mostly useful when dealing with applications using autoconf's broken
- AC_FUNC_MALLOC macro (which redefines malloc as rpl_malloc if it
+ AC_FUNC_MALLOC macro (which redefines malloc as rpl_malloc if it
does not detect glibc style returning-a-valid-pointer-for-malloc(0)
behavior). Most people can safely answer N.
More information about the uClibc-cvs
mailing list