Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!orcenl!bengsig From: bengsig@oracle.nl (Bjorn Engsig) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: FREE Message-ID: <544@nlsun1.oracle.nl> Date: 5 Mar 90 12:44:11 GMT References: <2714@stl.stc.co.uk> <1990Feb27.155133.20341@druid.uucp> <16055@haddock.ima.isc.com> <1990Mar1.140829.17199@druid.uucp> <1990Mar2.152601.8000@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu> Reply-To: bengsig@oracle.nl (Bjorn Engsig) Organization: Oracle Europe, The Netherlands Lines: 13 Article <1990Mar2.152601.8000@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu> by ping@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Shiping Zhang) says: | Why is NOT calloc() made machine independent. It's not a matter of machine dependence, but a matter of dependence of what your program puts into the malloc'ed area. And since only integers are sure to have all zero-bit zero's, only cases where you only put integers into the malloc'ed area can be cleared with all-zeros, i.e. allocated by a calloc call. | Why is NOT malloc() made to initialize the contents automatically? Why would you spend time on this, if you have to put data into the area anyway? I believe this is by far the most common use. -- Bjorn Engsig, Domain: bengsig@oracle.nl, bengsig@oracle.com Path: uunet!mcsun!orcenl!bengsig