Xref: utzoo comp.std.c:1854 comp.lang.c:22963
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: commom malloc/free practice breaks standard - author strikes back
Message-ID: <11325@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 17 Oct 89 06:10:18 GMT
References: <1989Oct16.111059.3840@anucsd.oz> <1284@virtech.UUCP> <20203@mimsy.umd.edu>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 12

In article <20203@mimsy.umd.edu> chris@mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek) writes:
>In his opinion, it would be possible for an implementation to conform to
>the letter of the standard, yet have code like ... break.

Yeah, well, I've already explained why he's wrong, and I think the
other respondents have been trying to say pretty much the same thing.

I don't think we need to spend any more time on this.  If there were
a real problem with the standard, that would be one thing, but since
that has not been demonstrated and arguments to the contrary have not
been refuted (restatement of the original claim does not constitute
refutation), I for one consider the matter settled.