Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!lethe!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!unmvax!bbx!bbxsda!scott
From: scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: effect of free()
Message-ID: <153@bbxsda.UUCP>
Date: 22 Sep 89 16:03:49 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> <1 <137@bbxsda
Reply-To: scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker)
Organization: Basis International,  Albuquerque, NM
Lines: 25

In article <871@cirrusl.UUCP> dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>In actual practice, the question one really ought to ask is not "is it
>portable?" but "how portable is it?"
>
>So how portable is a C program that examines a freed pointer without
>dereferencing it?  Probably not 100.000% portable, but close enough
>that it makes little difference.

Thank you for putting it in plain language (I seem to have a problem
with that at times).  It is difficult to develop a complex application
without treading into the twilight zone of "implementation dependent"
features.  That's why so many of us have "locals.h" files.
Sooner or later you have to quit being paranoid and start getting some
real work done.

I think many readers of this newsgroup are afraid that their 99% portable
programs will become 50% portable overnight because the ANSI draft
officially tells C implementors that anything goes in certain areas that
were once relatively safe.  However, I don't think that will happen
(that gets back to market pressure).

-- 
Scott Amspoker
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM
(505) 345-5232