From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Feb 26 11:50:19 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from guild.plethora.net (guild.plethora.net [205.166.146.8]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A4D937B491 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:50:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from seebs@guild.plethora.net) Received: from guild.plethora.net (seebs@localhost.plethora.net [127.0.0.1]) by guild.plethora.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f1QJoE612168 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:50:15 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <200102261950.f1QJoE612168@guild.plethora.net> From: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Reply-To: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Setting memory allocators for library functions. In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 27 Feb 2001 03:32:56 +0900." <3A9AA158.61669F11@newsguy.com> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:50:14 -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <3A9AA158.61669F11@newsguy.com>, "Daniel C. Sobral" writes: >Anyway, these are two very different situations, and comparing them is >silly. They are situations in which an application can be killed and has no way to detect that it is about to do something wrong, and in which there *was* a correct way to notify the application of impending doom. Once we accept the argument "the C standard doesn't say this doesn't cause a segmentation fault", we can apply it to everything. -s To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message