Xref: utzoo comp.std.c:1884 comp.lang.c:23053
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!wuarchive!texbell!attctc!kcdev!cpsolv!rhg
From: rhg@cpsolv.UUCP (Richard H. Gumpertz)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: commom malloc/free practice breaks standard - author strikes back
Message-ID: <420@cpsolv.UUCP>
Date: 20 Oct 89 07:43:34 GMT
References: <1989Oct16.111059.3840@anucsd.oz> <416@cpsolv.UUCP> <11334@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Reply-To: rhg@cpsolv.uucp (Richard H. Gumpertz)
Organization: Computer Problem Solving, Leawood, Kansas
Lines: 26

In article <11334@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>NO, it is NOT legal!  Sheesh.

OK, where in the standard does it say it is illegal?

>Wrong, wrong, wrong.  The Standard already says what was intended in
>this regard.  It did NOT intend for your interpretation to be applied.
>In fact, what you're asking for can be deduced as a special case from
>the existing specifications in the Standard; no additional wording is
>necessary to enforce this constraint.

Again, where in the standard does it say that?

Arguments that just make assertions without citation don't hold much water.
I cannot find anything that says conversion from "void *" to "obj *" cannot
round up.  In fact,I cannot find anything in the standard that says
      free((void *) (object *) malloc(sizeof(object)))
will work: the standard only says that
      free(malloc(sizeof(object)))
will work.  Please tell me what section I have overlooked or stop saying
the standard already has things that I cannot find.
-- 
==========================================================================
| Richard H. Gumpertz    rhg@cpsolv.UUCP -or- ...uunet!amgraf!cpsolv!rhg |
| Computer Problem Solving, 8905 Mohawk Lane, Leawood, Kansas 66206-1749 |
==========================================================================