Article View: comp.std.c
Article #5775Re: realloc
From: Doug Gwyn
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1989 15:48
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1989 15:48
18 lines
1465 bytes
1465 bytes
In article <10170@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> scs@adam.pika.mit.edu (Steve Summit) writes: >Today, for the third time in half as many years, I got badly >burned, and wasted lots of time, due to a bug in a certain >vendor's implementation of realloc. It is an apparently well- >kept secret that realloc is supposed to behave gracefully at >a slightly special-cased boundary point: when handed a NULL >pointer and a nonzero size, it acts essentially as a malloc. While that's required for ANSI C standard conformance, in fact many existing C implementations do not behave that way, and it isn't advertised behavior even in the current UNIX release (I don't think it even works that way). Therefore it is unwise to rely on this behavior in an application intended for a not-necessarily-ANSI-conforming environment. So why standardize this uncommon behavior? I think the intent was to make programming easier at some future date when nearly all C environments will be standard conforming.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<9941@smoke.BRL.MIL>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!haven!adm!smoke!gwynReferences:
<10170@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: realloc Keywords: realloc NULL Message-ID: <9941@smoke.BRL.MIL> Date: 29 Mar 89 15:48:43 GMT References: <10170@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 18