Re: Shrinking with realloc

Article View: comp.std.c

Article #443

#443

From: Doug Gwyn
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1989 21:10

7 lines
867 bytes

In article <26362@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> signup@cs.ucla.edu writes:
>[no_move_realloc] seems easy to provide; was it ever considered?

No, and it is unlikely that it would have been included in the Standard
even if it had been proposed.  This is the first time I've ever even
heard a complaint about this facet of realloc()'s (existing) design.
It doesn't seem like a significant deficiency in existing practice..

Technical Details

Message-ID: <10711@smoke.BRL.MIL>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!gatech!uflorida!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn

References: <26328@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <1431@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> <26362@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!gatech!uflorida!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Shrinking with realloc
Message-ID: <10711@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 11 Aug 89 21:10:40 GMT
References: <26328@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <1431@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> <26362@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 7

Reply to Parent Message