Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Memory Protection! Message-ID: <6373@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 18 Aug 90 13:24:04 GMT References: <13756@cbmvax.commodore.com> <900816.150215.CDT.C506634@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU> <1248.26cbc22c@waikato.ac.nz> <13858@cbmvax.commodore.com> Reply-To: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 23 In article <13858@cbmvax.commodore.com> valentin@cbmvax (Valentin Pepelea) writes: > Asking Amiga programmers to immediately stop putting data in code hunks is like > asking Unix programmers to always free all their memory before exiting a > program. What's wrong with that? *I* always free all my memory before exiting a program (well, I leave it up to "exit()" to free memory that stdio has allocated) simply because I write re-usable routines: I expect that they may be used in a program that *doesn't* exit on an error. Say, an interactive one. What gets *MY* goat are the folks writing code for BSD that refuse to check the return status of malloc() because "with VM, it never fails". Crap. > Now guys, don't try to convice me otherwise because I already agree with you. > It's just that I can't do anything about it. If *I* can do something about it, simply by doing the right thing, why can't you? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .