Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!dylan
From: dylan@ibmpcug.co.uk (Matthew Farwell)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Why 'life after free'.
Keywords: question about malloc+free combination.
Message-ID: <1990Sep30.163824.12974@ibmpcug.co.uk>
Date: 30 Sep 90 16:38:24 GMT
References: <quan.654673946@sol>
Reply-To: dylan@ibmpcug.CO.UK (Matthew Farwell)
Distribution: comp
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Lines: 38

In article <quan.654673946@sol> quan@sol.surv.utas.oz (Stephen Quan) writes:
> From: wuxing@comp.mscs.mu.edu (Xing Wu)
> >In article <quan.654410256@sol> you write:
> >>  tmp = (char *) malloc(100);
> >>  for (i=0; i<=99 ; i++) *(tmp+i) = ch;
> >>  free(tmp);
> >>  return tmp;
> I normally do what you suggest, the reason why a brought up this issue is
> that if what I propose wasn't so unpredictable then I can have something
> like :
> 
>   printf("%s\n",funny('c'));
>   printf("%s\n",funny('x'));
> 
> Where funny will create a string of 100 c's or 100 s's.  The string is
> displayed in 'printf' (hopefully) and you don't need to worry about
> free-ing the memory.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but whats wrong with doing ....

char *
funny(c)
char c;
{
	static char a[100];
	int i;

	for (i=0 ; i<99 ; i++) a[i] = c;
	a[99] = '\0';
	return (&a[0]);
}

Dylan.
-- 
Matthew J Farwell                 | Email: dylan@ibmpcug.co.uk
The IBM PC User Group, PO Box 360,|        ...!uunet!ukc!ibmpcug!dylan
Harrow HA1 4LQ England            | CONNECT - Usenet Access in the UK!!
Phone: +44 81-863-1191            | Sun? Don't they make coffee machines?