Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!texbell!vector!attctc!chasm
From: chasm@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Charles Marslett)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: effect of free()
Summary: A personal opinion (but a very asserted one)
Message-ID: <9339@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>
Date: 12 Sep 89 18:59:19 GMT
References: <319@cubmol.BIO.COLUMBIA.EDU> <3756@buengc.BU.EDU> <10988@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 19

In article <10988@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
> In article <1465@levels.sait.edu.au> CCDN@levels.sait.edu.au (DAVID NEWALL) writes:
> >a machine that *did* trap in such a case, would be decidedly unfriendly.
> 
> while letting you continue to play with pointers that point absolutely
> nowhere would be friendly??

Most assuredly yes -- I have often kept lists of freed pointers (to identify
which were "not really" pointers for example), and the necessity of doing
a large number of (error prone) operations to avoid traps laid by the
computer makers and compiler standards writers does make me decidedly
unfriendly.  So I must assume that the inciting action was also unfriendly
;^).

===========================================================================
Charles Marslett
STB Systems, Inc.  <== Apply all standard disclaimers
Wordmark Systems   <== No disclaimers required -- that's just me
chasm@attctc.dallas.tx.us