Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!gatech!unmvax!bbx!bbxeng!scott
From: scott@bbxeng.UUCP (Engineering)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: effect of free()
Message-ID: <247@bbxeng.UUCP>
Date: 8 Sep 89 16:17:14 GMT
References: <319@cubmol.BIO.COLUMBIA.EDU> <3756@buengc.BU.EDU> <1989Aug17.005548.745@twwells.com> <16022@vail.ICO.ISC.COM> <248@seti.inria.fr> <1010@m3.mfci.UUCP> <10973@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Reply-To: scott@bbxeng.UUCP (Scott-Engineering)
Organization: Basis International, Albuquerque, NM
Lines: 23


 In article <10973@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
 >In article <1010@m3.mfci.UUCP> karzes@mfci.UUCP (Tom Karzes) writes:
 >>Nonsense.  There are no indirect or indexed references in the code above,
 >>hence no opportunities for invalid address traps.  Period.
 >
 >Loading an unmapped address descriptor into an address register may
 >cause an exception on some reasonable architectures.  Exclamation point.

In other words - you cannot even *test* a pointer unless you are *sure*
there is a valid address in it.  I don't think so.  Is NULL some kind
of special exception?  Before we waste anymore bandwidth with this topic,
does anybody actually know a specific architecture and C compiler combination
that would cause a problem on a pointer compare?



-- 

---------------------------------------
Scott Amspoker
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM
505-345-5232