Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a218
From: a218@mindlink.UUCP (Charlie Gibbs)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Dynamic Memory Allocation
Message-ID: <1177@mindlink.UUCP>
Date: 20 Feb 90 20:46:58 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Lines: 29

[Various discussions as to the legality of such constructs as

> for(s=head; s != NULL; s=s->next) free(s);

deleted]

     Why take a chance?  Being a "belt and suspenders"
man myself, I prefer something like this:

    s = head;
    while (s != NULL) {
        x = s;
        s = s->next;
        free (x);
    }

A bit of extra work, perhaps, but it's guaranteed
to work even if the OS designer had a bad day.

     Of course, I'm the type who uses lots of extra
parentheses just to play it safe, e.g.

    if ((x == a) && (y == b))

which won't break if I change the expressions.

--
Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.UUCP
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.