campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) (01/27/91)
In article <23975:Jan2516:36:5891@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
-
-Some versions of realloc() return the original pointer rather than 0 if
-they run out of memory. So you have to code the malloc()/bcopy()/free()
-sequence yourself if you want error checking.
Really? This is obviously Evil and Rude and Broken and should have been
Reported to the Proper Authorities. I am curious, since we have to write
code for a lot of different platforms. Do you know of any platforms that
have this particular bug?
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc., 120 Fulton Street
campbell@redsox.bsw.com Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (USA)
The U.S. Constitution may not be perfect, but it sure beats
whatever we're using right now.martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel) (01/30/91)
In article <23975:Jan2516:36:5891@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >Some versions of realloc() return the original pointer rather than 0 if >they run out of memory. So you have to code the malloc()/bcopy()/free() >sequence yourself if you want error checking. What? This sounds like a VERY serious bug (same as if malloc silently returned less memory than requested if there's not enough). On which major C-Implementation(s) does the problem exist and why wasn't it fixed if it isn't "hearsay"? I'm really concerned. PLEASE NAME THE IMPLEMENTATIONS. I want to avoid environments where even the simplest (known) bugs aren't fixed!! -- Martin Weitzel, email: martin@mwtech.UUCP, voice: 49-(0)6151-6 56 83