Re: When to check the return value of malloc

Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <5vtdu2F1nf6g1U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Ulrich Eckhardt <doomster@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'm certainly not suggesting that you should use int for a
general-purpose malloc() replacement. Rather, it would be an
argument for size_t being signed.

If it was 32 bits large, why wouldn't I be allowed to allocate 3GiB?

The existence of arguments one way doesn't preclude the existence of
arguments the other way.

Ahem, Richard, in case you were trying to say anything it totally missed me.
Please be a bit more explicit.

Thanks

Uli

.

Relevant Pages