> The hack depends on numeric overflow in the caller that flips negative number into positive, so malloc can't possibly know it got the wrong size. Look again

> The hack depends on numeric overflow in the caller that flips negative number into positive, so malloc can't possibly know it got the wrong size. Look again at the hack-- Ted is sending a negative number to malloc. If I change malloc's interface to accept signed numbers, then I can check inside the definition for negative numbers and report to the user that something bad has happened.