Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 22:20:42 -0700 From: James Jacobsen <james_jacobsen@lycos.co.uk> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: malloc() behavior (was: Pointer please) Message-ID: <20031006052042.GA22536@res241015.resnet.wsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <16256.62127.618353.861297@jerusalem.litteratus.org> (from roberthuff@rcn.com on Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 21:42:23 -0700) References: <27DDB356-F790-11D7-9174-003065838A88@mulle-kybernetik.com> <20031006030656.GK5283@dan.emsphone.com> <16256.57227.924291.290786@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20031006033200.GL5283@dan.emsphone.com> <20031006042751.GA85685@res241015.resnet.wsu.edu> <16256.62127.618353.861297@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
What's really bad, is that freebsd could potentally change there behavor down the line. Its probably dictated by the way kernel dezined, meaning they may do whats the cheapist. I would. If they do its go to lead to some weird behavior. :-) --James On 10/05/03 21:42:23, Robert Huff wrote: > > James Jacobsen writes: > > > It does not matter what freebsd does, C does not require that > > malloc initialize space according to Kernighan and Ritchie. > > I knew that, and agree depending on a particular behavior is > bad programming practice. That said, there's a lot of "bad > programmers" out there .... > > > Robert Huff > > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031006052042.GA22536>