Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!yahoo
From: yahoo@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Kenneth L Moore)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: (void *)  ?  /* again */
Keywords: coerce
Message-ID: <21781@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: 22 Jan 90 19:28:55 GMT
References: <6200009@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <21771@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <1990Jan22.103543.7116@virtech.uucp>
Reply-To: yahoo@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Kenneth L Moore)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services
Lines: 20

In article <1990Jan22.103543.7116@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes:
>In article <21771@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, yahoo@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Kenneth L Moore) writes:

=>Never use malloc() without declaring it as returning a pointer.  The 
=>cast you list will get rid of the warning from most compilers and
=>will not have any detrimental effect on the program.  However, 
=>removing the declaration for the malloc() can have a very bad effect
=>on the program on some systems. 
=>-- 
=>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
=>| Conor P. Cahill     uunet!virtech!cpcahil      	703-430-9247	!
=>| Virtual Technologies Inc.,    P. O. Box 876,   Sterling, VA 22170     |
=>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Thanks for the tip. I guess I've just been lucky on our systems here.
(I've never had any problems on our ultrix, sun unix or VAX)


-- 
I don't yell and I don't tell and I'm grateful as hell: Benny Hill