Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!star.cs.vu.nl!ast
From: ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: POSIX
Message-ID: <4128@ast.cs.vu.nl>
Date: 27 Oct 89 21:56:48 GMT
References: <3819@ast.cs.vu.nl> <1989Oct26.143100.4916@world.std.com> <3842@math.cs.vu.nl> <3600@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum)
Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam
Lines: 15

In article <3600@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> truesdel@sun217..nas.nasa.gov (David A. Truesdell) writes:
>I bet to differ!  I consider this to be pointing out a bug in the implementation
>of free().  Calling free(), with a grabage pointer, shouldn't result in a
>trap either.  It shouldn't be layed at the feet of a portable library package
>to work around possible bugs in the underlying environment.

I disagree.  A proper, portable library package should not make invalid
calls to other library routines in the expectation that they will detect
their bad arguments and give a polite reply.  If you maintain that the
called library routine (free) should check for bad arguments, then the
directory package should also check for bad arguments.  As a library
implementer you can hardly say "Everybody else should check for bad
arguments are complain when found, but I don't have to check."

Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)