Re: why is casting malloc a bad thing?
From: Sidney Cadot (sidney_at_jigsaw.nl)
Date: 01/30/04
- Next message: Sidney Cadot: "Re: why is casting malloc a bad thing?"
- Previous message: pete: "Re: Extent of the "as-if" rule"
- In reply to: Dan Pop: "Re: why is casting malloc a bad thing?"
- Next in thread: Daniel Haude: "Re: why is casting malloc a bad thing?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:39:38 +0100
Dan Pop wrote:
>>Not at all. For example, I do not have to rely on the semantics of
>>trigraphs, since I avoid them like the plague.
>
>
> You may still inadvertently fall upon them, if you're not extremely
> careful. E.g.
>
> puts("Huh??!");
Like for accidental failure to include <stdlib.h>, my compiler help me
by warning about such mishaps. And yes, this /has/ prevented mayhem once
or twice :-)
Best regards,
Sidney
- Next message: Sidney Cadot: "Re: why is casting malloc a bad thing?"
- Previous message: pete: "Re: Extent of the "as-if" rule"
- In reply to: Dan Pop: "Re: why is casting malloc a bad thing?"
- Next in thread: Daniel Haude: "Re: why is casting malloc a bad thing?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|