Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!twwells!bill
From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: effect of free()
Message-ID: <1989Sep22.005613.5321@twwells.com>
Date: 22 Sep 89 00:56:13 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> <10983@smoke.BRL.MIL> <591@augean.OZ> <125@bbxsda.UUCP> <11121@smoke.B
Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Lines: 13

In article <11121@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
: It's not very hard to factor in the notion that a pointer is "poison"
: when it no longer points to valid storage.  One would think that
: "well-written code" would already follow that model, which is
: compatible with a wider range of environments.

Mine always did. Even before I learned to think about portability. It
just never occured to me that a freed pointer was anything but
nonsense.

---
Bill                    { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.com