Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:55:03 -0500
Message-ID: <4F97E61A.464@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:55:06 -0400
From: pete <pfiland@mindspring.com>
Reply-To: pfiland@mindspring.com
Organization: PF
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: What standard library functions must deal with allocated memory?
References: <4f9598df$0$20194$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <14459967.23.1335253094679.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yndm3> <jn851f$3r6$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 66
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.156.228.95
X-Trace: sv3-Zcoq4H1l0iMOAGp2yrIdhoUqGMRqOVRua6WMIP/++CwG01v4cPdzcladmQpEO5W/RUoqTmTC9xkZREp!zait8IJXCXtuTP1XkmffQN03Se2W+H2I312WzJ15aKy6RoRtJjRT5oGoV7Mmru07vJACYq5TTs8S!aoLX9zXr
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2868
X-Received-Bytes: 3009
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:19899

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> 
> On 24-Apr-12 02:38, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> > בתאריך יום ש� י, 23 באפריל 2012 19:01:49 UTC+1, מאת Francois Grieu:
> >> I'm trying to list all the standard
> >> C99/C2011 library functions that, by
> >> design, must deal with allocated memory in any way.
> >>
> >> I've seen calloc malloc realloc free. Is there any other?
> >> If strdup was a standard function (it is not),
> >> it would be in my list.
> >
> > None of them, except for malloc(), realloc() and free() themselves.
> >
> > This appears to have been a deliberate design decision.
> > strdup() is an obvious candidate for a library function,
> > but including it would make
> > the string library dependent on an allocation
> > package being available.
> 
> I thought it was a combination of wanting memory-allocation
> functions to be clearly identifiable as such
> and avoiding functions that were trivial
> combinations of other primitive functions already provided.

There's already at least a couple of string functions which are 
trivial combinations of other primitive functions already provided.

char *
strcat(char *s1, const char *s2)
{
    strcpy(strlen(s1) + s1, s2);
    return s1;
}

char *
strpbrk(const char *s1, const char *s2)
{
    s1 += strcspn(s1, s2);
    return *s1 != '\0' ? (char *)s1 : NULL;
}

There's also some trivial repackaging declared in stdio.h

int 
vprintf(const char *format, va_list arg)
{
    return vfprintf(stdout, format, arg);
}

and also declared in ctype.h

int 
isalpha(int c) 
{
    return islower(c) || isupper(c);
}

int 
isalnum(int c) 
{
    return isdigit(c) || isalpha(c);
}

-- 
pete