Re: [Q] about free(ptr)
From: subnet (sunglo_at_katamail.com)
Date: 12/06/04
- Next message: dandelion: "Re: IVT at address 0"
- Previous message: dandelion: "Re: Algorithm required."
- In reply to: Chris Torek: "Re: [Q] about free(ptr)"
- Next in thread: kj: "Re: [Q] about free(ptr)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 6 Dec 2004 00:46:42 -0800
Chris Torek <nospam@torek.net> wrote in message news:<covorf02cgi@news1.newsguy.com>...
> That shuts up the compiler, but the code remains wrong.
> [snip]
> That dinky little my_free() function was worse than useless -- it
> forced us to invent a temp variable, just so that we could copy
> the cleared-out value back to the variable we *really* wanted to
> clear out. It is just as bad as that stupid "clear_it_out" function
> that clears out a double.
Ok, I was wrong again. But, at least, we agree on the fact that using
an extra function to do such a simple task is ugly and awkward.
Thanks again.
- Next message: dandelion: "Re: IVT at address 0"
- Previous message: dandelion: "Re: Algorithm required."
- In reply to: Chris Torek: "Re: [Q] about free(ptr)"
- Next in thread: kj: "Re: [Q] about free(ptr)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]