[musl] Re: BUG: realloc(p,0) should be consistent with malloc(0)

[enh]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 11:37 AM Thorsten Glaser <tg@mirbsd.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2025, enh wrote:
>
> >not when POSIX screwed up and made a change that made most of the
> >existing implementations non-conformant, no. that sounds like a POSIX
>
> “most of”?

...weighted by number of users (who could be negatively affected by
change), of course.

> Looks to me like most implementations already do the latter,
> and some might do the former, and only a minority (the three
> mentioned earlier) don’t.
>
> bye,
> //mirabilos
> --
> “It is inappropriate to require that a time represented as
>  seconds since the Epoch precisely represent the number of
>  seconds between the referenced time and the Epoch.”
>         -- IEEE Std 1003.1b-1993 (POSIX) Section B.2.2.2