Article View: comp.std.c
Article #722Re: commom malloc/free practice breaks standard - author strikes back
From: Chris Torek
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1989 03:14
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1989 03:14
23 lines
1444 bytes
1444 bytes
>> Is anyone out there brave enough to AGREE with me? In article <1284@virtech.UUCP> cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill) writes: >Brave has nothing to do with it. You just don't understand the concept of >malloc() returning a suitably alligned pointer. I am sure the fellow *does* understand the concept. He is not saying that this is (or is not) how things work. He is simply saying that, in his reading, the proposed standard does not make sufficient constraints on the implementation to force the implementation to work. In his opinion, it would be possible for an implementation to conform to the letter of the standard, yet have code like p = (struct foo *)malloc(sizeof(struct foo)); if (p == NULL) ... handle error ... ... use *p ... free((void *)p); break. -- `They were supposed to be green.' In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163) Domain: chris@cs.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<20203@mimsy.umd.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ark1!nems!mimsy!chrisReferences:
<1989Oct16.111059.3840@anucsd.oz> <1284@virtech.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ark1!nems!mimsy!chris From: chris@mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek) Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: commom malloc/free practice breaks standard - author strikes back Message-ID: <20203@mimsy.umd.edu> Date: 17 Oct 89 03:14:33 GMT References: <1989Oct16.111059.3840@anucsd.oz> <1284@virtech.UUCP> Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 23