Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!hsdndev!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: realloc((char *)NULL,size) - how standard ?
Message-ID: <15112:Feb2419:11:4391@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 24 Feb 91 19:11:43 GMT
References: <1991Feb16.010828.2152@pscnet.UUCP> <1991Feb24.071716.409@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: IR
Lines: 12

In article <1991Feb24.071716.409@athena.mit.edu> scs@adam.mit.edu writes:
>      Passing an initially-null pointer to realloc can make it very easy
>      to write a self-starting incremental allocation algorithm.

I find this advice counterproductive. Much better would be

	Passing an initially null pointer to realloc may seem a tempting
	way to write a self-starting incremental allocation algorithm,
	but it is simply not portable. It's just as easy---and much more
	portable---to start by allocating one element.

---Dan