Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: double free
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 09:36:08 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <lnwpkgl11j.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <d5964270-015f-4955-9f7a-6a06bcfb5944@googlegroups.com> <d3c0b115-927f-af9a-2c65-7893df4cbba9@verizon.net> <nlrfm4$fgs$1@dont-email.me> <57837892.8808984@news.xs4all.nl> <481f30b4-acb3-4445-92b3-c403dc3e51f7@googlegroups.com> <nlvv8j$qcs$1@dont-email.me> <d488ce9f-4bc2-40a2-8ba9-7912d08bf368@googlegroups.com> <nm0266$5tu$1@dont-email.me> <nm03vc$c83$1@dont-email.me> <nm05tf$ihb$1@dont-email.me> <nm0mgp$jmb$1@dont-email.me> <8760sc2aiz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <nm0vt6$ogf$1@dont-email.me> <87twfv26cv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <nm1636$h7q$1@dont-email.me> <nm1t9l$94u$1@dont-email.me> <2cfb31aa-11dd-422c-a5ea-07f44bee0deb@googlegroups.com> <lnwpkqj1yq.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <kfnzipfx78c.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <lnpoqavmto.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <kfnh9bkux0r.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="945944de09706c9b4e29b53c9d2efdc2"; logging-data="6137"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18k/DTYwpiy6hl5yn0ExMwD"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uCWTALKMnebS5wylEQhduqjPLLk= sha1:4Ht/buP4XXgFsov/VpYPPep0A+I=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:90672

Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>> Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
[...]
>>> Also it is worth remembering that there is another form of unary
>>> expression in C (including pre-C11 C) where the operation symbol
>>> is not a punctuator (ie, it is alphabetic).
>>
>> Are you referring to `sizeof ( type-name )`?
>
> No, I lump that in with the other sizeof.  I deliberaly didn't
> say before to let people have the pleasure of discovering it for
> themselves, but enough time has passed so a spoiler is warranted.
> Section 6.10.1 p1.  (Note that here too this operator may be used
> without parentheses.)

Very cute.  But I question whether that's really a "unary
expression".  I note that 6.10.1p1 doesn't use that phrase (though
that's likely what was intended), and I cite the definition of
"unary-expression" in 6.5.3.

Bottom line: I'd say the wording is a bit sloppy, with the result
that the meaning is still perfectly clear but it can lead to pedantic
quibbles like this one.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"