Subject: bug#19061: [PATCH] dfa: building superset, access to unallocated memory

From: Norihiro Tanaka <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 07:56:13 +0900

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 07:48:34 -0800
Jim Meyering <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Does some code assume that V->charclasses != NULL implies
> 0 < V->calloc? I would argue that such code is incorrect.  I.e.,
> in the degenerate case (calloc == 0), the code should not
> distinguish between a NULL charclasses member and one
> that points to a malloc'd buffer of length 0.

Thanks for the pushing.  I understood that you said.