Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:27:04 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Setting memory allocators for library functions. Message-ID: <9820.983050024@critter> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:17:27 CST." <200102242117.f1OLHR619234@guild.plethora.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200102242117.f1OLHR619234@guild.plethora.net>, Peter Seebach writes : >In message <9631.983048712@critter>, Poul-Henning Kamp writes: >>No it is not and it never was. > >The C committee believes it is. The C committee doesn't deal with operating systems or the real world for that matter. They only interest them selves with a programming language. I think there is a language thing you don't understand here. If a car is advertised as "up to 18 km/l" that means that they will guarantee that you will never ever see it doing better. It doesn't mean that you will ever see that level of performance. Like wise malloc(3) will never return a pointer which it _knows_ you cannot use, but it may not have the information that enables it to determine that you cannot use it and thus unknowingly pass the pointer to you, even though you cannot use it. EOS from here. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9820.983050024>