svn rev #23376: trunk/src/include/

[Greg Hudson]

On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 00:25 -0500, Ken Raeburn wrote:
> This is not the only change recently that assumes that malloc and  
> friends will never return NULL in a success case; k5-int.h:k5alloc  
> makes that assumption too.  Are you assuming that the krb5 code will  
> never make a call requesting zero bytes?  (Or asserting that it  
> shouldn't and any such cases are bugs; or actually checking the call  
> sites?)  Or is this just an oversight?

In general I am happy to assume that krb5 code will never need to
allocate zero bytes.  This might be foolish, but I have yet to see a
counterexample.

As long as it holds, it's a useful simplifying assumption.  In
particular, I think we might start seeing spurious Coverity defects if
we start hedging the (ptr == NULL) checks.