Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: effect of free()
Message-ID: <14648@bfmny0.UU.NET>
Date: 10 Sep 89 21:26:10 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> <172@cpsolv.UUCP> <29110@news.Think.COM> <11018@smoke.BRL.MIL> <285@mic.UUCP>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Organization: ^
Lines: 7
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:

It's true that a well written application program should never be in
doubt whether a pointer is obsolete, but OS code doesn't always have
this luxury.  An OS is by definition "out of control" -- ask any
sysprog. :-)
-- 
Annex Canada now!  We need the room,	\)	Tom Neff
    and who's going to stop us.		(\	tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET