Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!uw-entropy!quick!happym!kent
From: kent@happym.wa.com (Kent Forschmiedt)
Newsgroups: comp.bugs.misc
Subject: Re: Need help with C bug.
Keywords: pcc2 char array code generation
Message-ID: <769@happym.wa.com>
Date: 12 Apr 89 01:54:33 GMT
References: <765@happym.wa.com> <21@desint.UUCP>
Reply-To: kent@happym.UUCP (0000-Kent Forschmiedt)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Seattle
Lines: 21

>In article <765@happym.wa.com> I mention that my compiler mishandles
>> p && free(p);

In article <21@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes:
>Note that this is an illegal statement on most modern Unixes, because free()
>is (or should be) declared with a void return value.  (Of course, if free()
>is replaced by any routine that returns a value, the compiler should be
>able to handle it, regardless of the fact that it is horrible coding style.)

Perhaps it is horrible coding style, and perhaps it is not, depending on
who you ask.  I probably use a lot of methods that you would call horrible.

If you ask Richard Stallman, I hope he says it isn't, because GNU is rife
with it.

In any case, the language that we call C supports that style, while the
program that Motorola calls a C compiler does not, and so does not compile
unmodified GNU sources.

-- 
 kent@happym.wa.com, tikal!camco!happym!kent, Happy Man Corp 206-282-9598