Re: realloc

Article View: comp.std.c

Article #5804

#5804

From: Antoine Verheijen
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1989 23:33

14 lines
1171 bytes

In article <9122@alice.UUCP> andrew@alice.UUCP (Andrew Hume) writes:
>
>
>gregg townsend reminds us of the pANS ``feature'' that malloc(0) returns NULL.
>can anyone provide the (or any) justification of this pointless stupid
>definition? i just love the idea that an initialised pointer is SOMETIMES
>indistinguishable from an uninitialised pointer.

Please note that a NULL pointer is not (necessarily) the same thing as an
uninitialized pointer. NULL is a very specific and legitimate value for
a pointer whereas an uninitialized pointer is, by definition, unpredictable,
its value usually being dependent on the system you're running under (unless
I've missed something new in the standard).

Technical Details

Message-ID: <2185@pembina.UUCP>

Path:

arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!alberta!antoine

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!alberta!antoine
From: antoine@alberta.UUCP (Antoine Verheijen)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: realloc
Summary: NULL is not the same as uninitialized.
Message-ID: <2185@pembina.UUCP>
Date: 31 Mar 89 23:33:59 GMT
Reply-To: antoine@pembina.UUCP (Antoine Verheijen)
Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Lines: 14