I never used realloc(), only malloc() and calloc().
Checking a few unixes I have access to all reallocs() seem to state
either nothing on contents of memory added or state explicitly
'undefined'.
The only function which zeroes allocated memory is calloc() it seems.
Unixes checks: SCO UNIX 3.2V4.2, Digital Unix 4.0G, Tru64 Unix V5.1B,
HP-UX 11.23, HP-UX 11.31
Cheers
On 9/11/15, tuhs-request@minnie.tuhs.org <tuhs-request@minnie.tuhs.org> wrote:
> Send TUHS mailing list submissions to
> tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> tuhs-request@minnie.tuhs.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> tuhs-owner@minnie.tuhs.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of TUHS digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Did realloc ever zero the new memory? (David)
> 2. Re: Did realloc ever zero the new memory? (Jim Capp)
> 3. Re: Did realloc ever zero the new memory? (David)
> 4. Re: Did realloc ever zero the new memory? (Larry McVoy)
> 5. Re: Did realloc ever zero the new memory? (David)
> 6. Re: Did realloc ever zero the new memory? (Larry McVoy)
> 7. Re: Did realloc ever zero the new memory? (Clem Cole)
> 8. Re: Did realloc ever zero the new memory? (Dave Horsfall)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:52:45 -0700
> From: David <david@kdbarto.org>
> To: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org
> Subject: [TUHS] Did realloc ever zero the new memory?
> Message-ID: <E798E102-2C50-4AB2-92CC-188D05AA951F@kdbarto.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> I?ve just had a discussion with my boss about this and he claimed that it
> did at one point and I said it hasn?t in all the unix versions I?ve ever
> played with (v6, v7, sys III, V, BSD 2, 3, 4, SunOS and Solaris).
>
> My question to this illustrious group is: Did any Unix or Unix like OS ever
> zero fill on realloc?
>
> David
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:10:41 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Jim Capp <jcapp@anteil.com>
> To: david@kdbarto.org
> Cc: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] Did realloc ever zero the new memory?
> Message-ID: <5962857.12872.1441915841364.JavaMail.root@zimbraanteil>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On every system that I've ever used, I believe that realloc did not do a
> zero fill. There might have been a time when malloc did a zero fill, but I
> never counted on it. I always performed a memset or bzero after a malloc.
> I'm pretty sure that I counted on realloc to NOT perform a zero fill.
>
>
> $.02
>
>
>
> From: "David" <david@kdbarto.org>
> To: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 3:52:45 PM
> Subject: [TUHS] Did realloc ever zero the new memory?
>
> I?ve just had a discussion with my boss about this and he claimed that it
> did at one point and I said it hasn?t in all the unix versions I?ve ever
> played with (v6, v7, sys III, V, BSD 2, 3, 4, SunOS and Solaris).
>
> My question to this illustrious group is: Did any Unix or Unix like OS ever
> zero fill on realloc?
>
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS@minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20150910/f4857c45/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:22:33 -0700
> From: David <david@kdbarto.org>
> To: Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com>
> Cc: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] Did realloc ever zero the new memory?
> Message-ID: <395F25EB-77F3-4830-A1AF-C27E43550C04@kdbarto.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Buggy, sure.
>
> Zero (less) filling, that is the question.
>
> Realloc has had a difficult history, and I try to avoid it if at all
> possible.
>
> David
>
>> On Sep 10, 2015, at 1:21 PM, Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
>>
>> Am I the only one that remembers realloc() being buggy on some systems?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:27:23 -0700
> From: Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com>
> To: David <david@kdbarto.org>
> Cc: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] Did realloc ever zero the new memory?
> Message-ID: <20150910202723.GI8154@mcvoy.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Good, glad to know it wasn't just me. I've finally let my team use it
> but we avoided it when we supported more odd ball platforms.
>
> On zero fill, I doubt many did that. Many really early on when memory
> was small.
>
> What you might be thinking of is modern systems implement malloc()
> as an mmap of /dev/zero and the initial data comes through as zeroed.
> But counting on that would be a mistake.
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 01:22:33PM -0700, David wrote:
>> Buggy, sure.
>>
>> Zero (less) filling, that is the question.
>>
>> Realloc has had a difficult history, and I try to avoid it if at all
>> possible.
>>
>> David
>>
>> > On Sep 10, 2015, at 1:21 PM, Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Am I the only one that remembers realloc() being buggy on some systems?
>
> --
> ---
> Larry McVoy lm at mcvoy.com
> http://www.mcvoy.com/lm
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:29:16 -0700
> From: David <david@kdbarto.org>
> To: Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com>
> Cc: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] Did realloc ever zero the new memory?
> Message-ID: <FF64BDD6-C57E-4959-B0D1-2F97FF909EA9@kdbarto.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> I mentioned the /dev/zero malloc and, no, he was quite sure that it was
> realloc doing the zero fills.
>
> Glad to know that I?m sitting on the right side of history on this one.
>
> David
>
>> On Sep 10, 2015, at 1:27 PM, Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
>>
>> Good, glad to know it wasn't just me. I've finally let my team use it
>> but we avoided it when we supported more odd ball platforms.
>>
>> On zero fill, I doubt many did that. Many really early on when memory
>> was small.
>>
>> What you might be thinking of is modern systems implement malloc()
>> as an mmap of /dev/zero and the initial data comes through as zeroed.
>> But counting on that would be a mistake.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 01:22:33PM -0700, David wrote:
>>> Buggy, sure.
>>>
>>> Zero (less) filling, that is the question.
>>>
>>> Realloc has had a difficult history, and I try to avoid it if at all
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>> On Sep 10, 2015, at 1:21 PM, Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am I the only one that remembers realloc() being buggy on some systems?
>>
>> --
>> ---
>> Larry McVoy lm at mcvoy.com
>> http://www.mcvoy.com/lm
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:21:15 -0700
> From: Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com>
> To: Jim Capp <jcapp@anteil.com>
> Cc: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org, david@kdbarto.org
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] Did realloc ever zero the new memory?
> Message-ID: <20150910202115.GH8154@mcvoy.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Am I the only one that remembers realloc() being buggy on some systems?
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:41:26 -0400
> From: Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com>
> To: Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com>
> Cc: david@kdbarto.org, TUHS main list <tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] Did realloc ever zero the new memory?
> Message-ID:
> <CAC20D2P_Gw-YKP8EHASFToTe_W0nfdcJabQ6_aJYnX0BhnPvng@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> below
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
>
>> Am I the only one that remembers realloc() being buggy on some systems?
>>
>>
> ?Amen... it was rarely useful. I always found realloc to one of the
> part I could never trust. I do remember what you got back from any of the
> malloc calls could vary widely. Particularly pre-ANSI C and working on
> non-UNIX systems.
>
>
> Malloc in general was always a tarbaby because there were (are) so many
> implementations "in the wild." I used to advise our application people to
> create something that was application specific and then call the local
> malloc under the covers, but the chances that a general malloc
> implementation would be optimal for your code was low.?
>
> Clem
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20150910/25a3e14c/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:13:41 +1000 (EST)
> From: Dave Horsfall <dave@horsfall.org>
> To: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society <tuhs@tuhs.org>
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] Did realloc ever zero the new memory?
> Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1509111005190.42450@aneurin.horsfall.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, David wrote:
>
>> I?ve just had a discussion with my boss about this and he claimed that
>> it did at one point and I said it hasn?t in all the unix versions I?ve
>> ever played with (v6, v7, sys III, V, BSD 2, 3, 4, SunOS and Solaris).
>
> Only V6? I did V5... Tell that to the young kids of today, and they
> won't believe you.
>
>> My question to this illustrious group is: Did any Unix or Unix like OS
>> ever zero fill on realloc?
>
> Never in my lifetime, which meant that you got inspect someone's private
> messages and there's someone knocking at my door and
>
> #$%^&*\{{{
>
> NO CARRIER
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS@minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
>
> End of TUHS Digest, Vol 128, Issue 1
> ************************************
>
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs