Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!adobe!asente
From: asente@adobe.com (Paul Asente)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: XtMalloc always fails fatally - why?
Message-ID: <6218@adobe.UUCP>
Date: 1 Sep 90 01:16:04 GMT
References: <1990Aug31.105145.22656@axion.bt.co.uk>
Sender: news@adobe.COM
Organization: Adobe Systems Inc.
Lines: 26

In article <1990Aug31.105145.22656@axion.bt.co.uk> CRouch@axion.bt.co.uk writes:
>Whenever XtMalloc fails to allocate memory it calls an error message
>handler which calls exit, thus terminating the application. What is the
>reason for doing it this way, rather than letting the calling procedure
>decide what action to take? 

How often have you written
	if ((ptr = malloc(...)) == NULL) {
	    error msg
	}
???  More importantly, how often have you *not* written it when you should?
Most applications don't cope with malloc failing, so doing the test for
them is a substantial convenience and leads to more correct programs.

>More importantly is there any way round this?

Sure, use malloc instead.  The spec says:

-These functions are completely compatible with their standard C language
-runtime counterparts

so you can mix and match malloc and XtMalloc as you wish.

	-paul asente

New address!	asente@adobe.com	...decwrl!adobe!asente