Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!uhccux!munnari.oz.au!mimir!hugin!augean!sirius!nt!levels!ccdn
From: CCDN@levels.sait.edu.au (DAVID NEWALL)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: effect of free()
Message-ID: <1693@levels.sait.edu.au>
Date: 18 Sep 89 17:41:15 GMT
References: <319@cubmol.BIO.COLUMBIA.EDU> <3756@buengc.BU.EDU> <10988@smoke.BRL.MIL> <9339@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> <1641@levels.sait.edu.au> <11070@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Organization: Sth Australian Inst of Technology
Lines: 18

In article <11070@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
> In particular, there is a school of thought that says machine architecture
> should be designed to assist in program reliability.  That school
> occasionally influences computer architectures such that actions like
> merely continuing to shuffle around invalid pointers cause an error trap
> to be taken.

That is supposed to make programs reliable?

Testing parameters for "correctness", rather than blindly hoping that they
are "correct", is one way to make programs more reliable.  Does that school
of yours suggest that it's OK to believe all (non-null) pointers?


David Newall                     Phone:  +61 8 343 3160
Unix Systems Programmer          Fax:    +61 8 349 6939
Academic Computing Service       E-mail: ccdn@levels.sait.oz.au
SA Institute of Technology       Post:   The Levels, South Australia, 5095