Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: effect of free()
Message-ID: <10983@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 9 Sep 89 00:38:00 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> <246@ssp1.idca.tds.philips.nl> <21952@cup.portal.com>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 12

In article <21952@cup.portal.com> Tim_CDC_Roberts@cup.portal.com writes:
>Isn't this a quality of implementation issue?  ...  Thus, in the case above,
>I would insist that the compiler writer move the address to a general-purpose
>register and do the comparison there.

It runs contrary to the "spirit of C" to require the implementation to
generate code that does operations the hard way when a more natural way
would suffice.

Personally, I would consider the "quality" issue as being in the opposite
sense:  Trapping on invalid address manipulation would be beneficial in
my view.