Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!ucsd!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!jik
From: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: realloc() (was: Re: Safe coding practices)
Message-ID: <1991Jan30.204159.5726@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 91 20:41:59 GMT
References: <1991Jan30.193308.3897@athena.mit.edu> <23975:Jan2516:36:5891@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Jan30.121425.16882@unhd.unh.edu> <1991Jan30.201955.21797@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 16

In article <1991Jan30.201955.21797@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes:
|> So the quote preceeded by > signs is not true for a correct realloc.
|> You CAN reuse p and *p after a failed realloc.

  We're not talking about "a correct realloc."  Remember that the book in
question is //Portability and the C Language//.  If you want to assume that
because ANSI C specifies realloc() as you quoted, all implementation of
realloc() you come across specify it in that way, that's your right, but I
doubt such an assumption is portable, which is why Jaeschke gave the
restriction he did.

-- 
Jonathan Kamens			              USnail:
MIT Project Athena				11 Ashford Terrace
jik@Athena.MIT.EDU				Allston, MA  02134
Office: 617-253-8085			      Home: 617-782-0710