Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #90018 > unrolled thread
| Started by | G G <gdotone@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-05 02:38 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-11-27 10:05 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 354 — 37 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 02:38 -0700
Re: double free Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-05 21:45 +1200
Re: double free Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-07-05 07:08 -0400
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:41 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-05 10:50 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-05 11:06 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-05 19:07 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-05 12:16 +0000
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-05 13:57 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-05 08:43 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-05 14:57 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-10 18:49 +0000
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 17:03 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-05 17:25 -0700
Re: double free Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2016-07-06 19:09 +0000
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-06 15:22 -0400
Re: double free Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-07-09 06:13 +0100
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 10:16 -0400
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-09 08:58 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 13:28 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 10:41 +0000
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-09 20:27 +0200
Re: double free "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-09 11:31 -0700
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 20:14 +0100
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-09 15:34 -0400
Re: double free jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-09 14:02 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 14:10 -0700
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 17:14 -0400
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 14:24 -0700
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 17:31 -0400
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-09 20:50 -0400
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 15:50 -0400
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-10 11:32 +0200
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-10 16:01 -0400
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-11 10:07 +0200
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-11 08:15 -0400
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 06:53 -0700
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-11 10:35 -0600
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 09:48 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 11:02 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 11:01 -0700
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-11 13:03 -0600
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 10:57 -0700
Re: double free albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-11-27 13:29 +0100
Re: double free Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-27 14:07 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-10 13:05 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-10 05:31 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-10 13:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-11 01:07 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 13:39 -0700
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-10 11:53 +0200
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-10 04:11 -0700
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-10 08:47 -0400
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-10 16:05 -0400
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-09 17:43 -0600
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 17:32 -0700
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-09 20:34 -0600
Re: double free Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2016-07-10 06:25 +0000
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-11 08:02 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 11:01 +0000
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 04:07 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 12:17 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 04:59 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 13:07 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 13:38 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 14:11 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 18:54 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 11:09 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 19:47 +0100
Re: double free Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-07-11 19:08 +0000
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-11 21:19 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 21:34 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 13:48 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-11 22:49 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 23:20 +0100
Re: double free Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 10:26 +0530
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 22:34 -0700
Re: double free Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-07-12 06:39 +0000
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 00:41 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 08:57 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 01:16 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 09:27 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 11:48 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 08:46 +0100
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 10:42 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 09:59 +0100
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 12:46 +0200
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:08 -0700
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 18:51 +0200
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 11:28 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 19:53 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-12 12:19 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 14:26 -0700
Re: double free Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-12 11:00 -0400
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 16:18 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 08:44 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 09:24 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 17:34 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 09:52 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:40 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 18:22 +0100
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 18:33 +0100
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-13 14:00 -0400
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 19:16 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 09:15 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 09:04 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-18 11:10 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-20 08:52 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-20 09:36 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-21 18:23 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 08:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 11:24 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 11:52 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 13:18 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 16:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 17:21 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:35 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 18:08 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 18:14 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 10:01 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-18 18:20 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-21 09:26 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-21 18:57 +0100
Re: double free Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 23:41 +0530
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 19:47 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-22 11:58 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 12:03 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 20:26 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 13:12 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 08:57 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 10:21 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-23 11:08 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 12:36 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-23 07:14 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 16:41 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:17 +0000
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-23 20:42 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:51 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 21:50 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 14:17 -0700
Re: double free luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 15:53 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 20:55 -0700
Re: double free luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 22:21 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 10:35 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-24 02:55 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-24 04:05 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-24 14:03 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 14:24 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 15:15 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 16:01 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-24 11:36 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 19:52 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-24 12:14 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 11:13 -0700
Re: double free Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 14:52 -0500
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-25 09:59 -0700
Re: double free Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 19:32 -0500
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-25 07:39 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 10:55 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 08:30 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-23 11:11 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:39 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 20:25 +0000
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 12:51 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-22 13:18 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 08:23 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 19:36 +0100
Re: double free albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-02 10:21 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 10:57 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-02 12:33 +0000
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 14:07 +0100
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 10:19 -0500
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-02 08:56 -0800
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 12:31 -0500
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-02 11:42 -0800
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-12 08:46 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:16 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 09:27 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 08:20 -0700
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-12 12:47 -0400
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-12 22:21 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 23:27 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 16:28 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 00:23 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 08:43 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 11:21 +0100
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-13 12:56 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 12:35 +0100
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-13 10:34 -0400
Re: double free Cal Dershowitz <cal@example.invalid> - 2016-07-15 05:57 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 11:17 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 04:30 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 12:33 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 13:41 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 13:57 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 06:10 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 20:08 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 15:11 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 18:14 +0100
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-13 19:20 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 18:24 +0100
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 00:51 -0500
Re: double free luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 02:18 -0700
Re: double free "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-15 07:12 -0500
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-15 13:14 +0100
Re: double free Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-18 09:28 +0200
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 18:43 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 20:15 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 21:14 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 13:24 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 21:50 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:21 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 13:02 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 21:34 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 13:51 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 22:22 +0100
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 01:08 -0500
Re: double free Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-07-15 17:33 +0800
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 05:02 -0700
Re: double free Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-07-15 21:15 +0800
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 14:48 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 08:02 -0700
Re: double free Cal Dershowitz <cal@example.invalid> - 2016-07-18 01:42 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-18 03:07 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 22:01 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 22:14 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 14:31 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 23:03 +0100
Re: double free "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-13 17:53 -0500
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-13 16:18 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 16:19 -0700
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-13 22:44 -0400
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-14 09:44 +0200
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 17:07 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-14 07:13 -0700
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 01:18 -0500
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-13 10:46 -0400
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 00:59 -0500
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-14 23:47 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 11:22 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 11:35 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 14:33 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 15:16 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 16:19 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 08:39 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 16:54 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 21:20 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 16:45 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 17:15 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 17:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 21:18 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 21:06 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 21:46 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 23:08 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-16 01:26 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 18:22 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 18:48 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 18:40 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 10:09 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 11:07 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 12:11 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 12:30 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 12:41 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 13:04 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 14:26 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-19 10:00 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 12:46 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 13:19 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 13:30 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 20:53 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 21:37 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 05:22 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-13 07:07 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 19:31 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-14 12:10 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 23:16 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-14 16:00 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-14 12:34 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 20:57 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-14 13:15 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 21:27 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-14 21:31 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 09:46 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 13:32 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 13:46 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 06:00 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 09:23 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 09:38 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 17:51 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 18:22 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 09:02 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 11:42 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 12:27 -0700
Re: double free Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-07-21 10:02 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-21 10:25 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-21 18:27 +0100
Re: double free Cal Dershowitz <cal@example.invalid> - 2016-07-29 00:42 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 08:59 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 15:22 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 15:59 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 16:39 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 16:55 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 17:49 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 18:20 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 19:03 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 19:22 +0100
sizeof (was Re: double free) Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-19 14:44 -0400
Re: sizeof (was Re: double free) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 12:31 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 22:46 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 15:19 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-20 00:21 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:21 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 12:08 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 09:41 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-21 18:10 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 11:23 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 03:40 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 10:33 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 12:47 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-12 22:18 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 10:53 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 21:20 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 13:56 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 22:39 +0100
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 10:57 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 21:58 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 13:23 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 13:00 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 10:44 -0700
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 19:10 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 20:22 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 21:11 +0100
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 21:49 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 22:01 +0100
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-11 09:09 -0400
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 14:16 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-15 13:51 +0000
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-15 12:04 -0400
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-11 17:51 +0200
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 10:19 +0000
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-05 08:57 -0600
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 11:13 -0400
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-05 09:05 -0700
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:38 -0700
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:34 -0700
Re: double free Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-07-06 04:10 +0100
Re: double free Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 21:27 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-06 02:53 -0700
Re: double free Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-06 06:09 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-06 07:53 -0700
Re: double free "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-06 01:25 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-06 11:12 +0100
Re: double free Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 09:52 -0800
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 10:05 -0800
Page 16 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 Next page →
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 16:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmlhis$je$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90586 |
On 19/07/2016 15:59, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 19/07/16 15:22, BartC wrote: >> It's one point showing that sizeof followed by "*" without an >> intervening bracket is difficult to distinguish from a multiply. > > Except that it isn't even remotely difficult. > > Any C programmer worth his or her salt can parse: > > T *new = malloc(n * sizeof *new); > > without any difficulty whatsoever. What about: T *new = malloc(sizeof *new*n); (where 'new' will probably be shown in bold for good measure) or, with extra spacing: T *new = malloc(sizeof *new * n); This is where the bounds of the sizeof argument get a teeny bit fuzzier, something you won't get with: T *new = malloc(sizeof(*new) * n); But this is turning into one of those arguments that someone can't win. Suppose X says feature F is little bit hard to use, or is confusing or is misleading or error-prone. Y then just turns round and says /they/ have no problem; it must be X that lacks the skill and must be incompetent! Following by Y suggesting that X follows a different profession. I can start to understand why C has remained practically unchanged for 45 years! -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 16:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmlii0$3jv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90589 |
On 19/07/16 16:39, BartC wrote: > On 19/07/2016 15:59, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 19/07/16 15:22, BartC wrote: > >>> It's one point showing that sizeof followed by "*" without an >>> intervening bracket is difficult to distinguish from a multiply. >> >> Except that it isn't even remotely difficult. >> >> Any C programmer worth his or her salt can parse: >> >> T *new = malloc(n * sizeof *new); >> >> without any difficulty whatsoever. > > What about: > > T *new = malloc(sizeof *new*n); Richard: If we do it The Right Way, it's easy. BartC: But I want to do it The Wrong Way! No wonder nobody treats you seriously. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 17:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmllns$fok$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90591 |
On 19/07/2016 16:55, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 19/07/16 16:39, BartC wrote: >> On 19/07/2016 15:59, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 19/07/16 15:22, BartC wrote: >> >>>> It's one point showing that sizeof followed by "*" without an >>>> intervening bracket is difficult to distinguish from a multiply. >>> >>> Except that it isn't even remotely difficult. >>> >>> Any C programmer worth his or her salt can parse: >>> >>> T *new = malloc(n * sizeof *new); >>> >>> without any difficulty whatsoever. >> >> What about: >> >> T *new = malloc(sizeof *new*n); > > Richard: If we do it The Right Way, it's easy. > BartC: But I want to do it The Wrong Way! So who determines which is the Right way and the Wrong way? Or is this yet another thing you have to bear in mind when using sizeof: * Always follow it with a space especially if * follows * Never follow the sizeof operand with a multiply operation * And for RH: always have an expression as operand, never a type which seems to me that everyone is acknowledging that there is, indeed, a bit of a problem with sizeof, but no one wants to admit it. (Or more likely, admit that I have a point and that parentheses would solve all the problems!) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 18:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmlngd$lrr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90605 |
On 19/07/16 17:49, BartC wrote: > On 19/07/2016 16:55, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 19/07/16 16:39, BartC wrote: >>> On 19/07/2016 15:59, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 19/07/16 15:22, BartC wrote: >>> >>>>> It's one point showing that sizeof followed by "*" without an >>>>> intervening bracket is difficult to distinguish from a multiply. >>>> >>>> Except that it isn't even remotely difficult. >>>> >>>> Any C programmer worth his or her salt can parse: >>>> >>>> T *new = malloc(n * sizeof *new); >>>> >>>> without any difficulty whatsoever. >>> >>> What about: >>> >>> T *new = malloc(sizeof *new*n); >> >> Richard: If we do it The Right Way, it's easy. >> BartC: But I want to do it The Wrong Way! > > So who determines which is the Right way and the Wrong way? In this case, the easy-to-type, easy-to-read, easy-to-maintain, easy-to-get-right, easy-to-fix-if-you-typed-it-wrong way is the right way, and the stupid way is the wrong way. It's not rocket science. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 19:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmlq17$a2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90613 |
On 19/07/2016 18:20, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 19/07/16 17:49, BartC wrote: >> So who determines which is the Right way and the Wrong way? > > In this case, the easy-to-type, easy-to-read, easy-to-maintain, > easy-to-get-right, easy-to-fix-if-you-typed-it-wrong way is the right > way, and the stupid way is the wrong way. It's not rocket science. OK, so /you/ get to call it. As I suspected. And presumably, if the language /required/ sizeof(...) in all cases, and I suggested the parentheses weren't always necessary (as it apparently makes all those things easy), then I'd still be wrong! -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 19:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmlr56$3mj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90615 |
On 19/07/16 19:03, BartC wrote: > On 19/07/2016 18:20, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 19/07/16 17:49, BartC wrote: > >>> So who determines which is the Right way and the Wrong way? >> >> In this case, the easy-to-type, easy-to-read, easy-to-maintain, >> easy-to-get-right, easy-to-fix-if-you-typed-it-wrong way is the right >> way, and the stupid way is the wrong way. It's not rocket science. > > OK, so /you/ get to call it. As I suspected. Well, I didn't always do it that way. I used to do this: T *p = (T *)malloc(n * sizeof(T)); and then I discovered that the guys in comp.lang.c had a better way. I saw the advantages of their way over mine, and I *learned*. As a strategy, learning has much to commend it. > And presumably, if the language /required/ sizeof(...) in all cases, and > I suggested the parentheses weren't always necessary (as it apparently > makes all those things easy), then I'd still be wrong! If the language required sizeof to take parentheses in all cases, it would be a language other than C (which does not have that requirement), and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Such as it is. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 14:44 -0400 |
| Subject | sizeof (was Re: double free) |
| Message-ID | <nmlse4$8tl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90620 |
On 7/19/2016 2:22 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
[...]
> If the language required sizeof to take parentheses in all cases, it would
> be a language other than C (which does not have that requirement), and we
> wouldn't be having this conversation. Such as it is.
I always use parens with sizeof, out of habit, but that's probably because
K&R, while saying you can use "sizeof expression" or "sizeof (type)", uses
parens in all of its examples.
No, it doesn't confuse me into thinking that sizeof() is a function.
However, I can see newbies getting confused with something like this
sizeof (long)-2
which is not the size of "-2" cast as a long. But I would think that
someone using that exact format would be doing that for the purpose of
confusing newbies.
--
Kenneth Brody
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 12:31 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: sizeof (was Re: double free) |
| Message-ID | <10190983-6a35-418c-b150-1525015558cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90622 |
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 7:44:28 PM UTC+1, Ken Brody wrote: > > However, I can see newbies getting confused with something like this > > sizeof (long)-2 > > which is not the size of "-2" cast as a long. But I would think that > someone using that exact format would be doing that for the purpose of > confusing newbies. > You're unlikely to want sizeof(long) -2. But N * sizeof(long) + 2 could crop up, if you need N longs and two "magic number" bytes or similar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 22:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmm733$f1t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90620 |
On 19/07/2016 19:22, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 19/07/16 19:03, BartC wrote: >> On 19/07/2016 18:20, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 19/07/16 17:49, BartC wrote: >> >>>> So who determines which is the Right way and the Wrong way? >>> >>> In this case, the easy-to-type, easy-to-read, easy-to-maintain, >>> easy-to-get-right, easy-to-fix-if-you-typed-it-wrong way is the right >>> way, and the stupid way is the wrong way. It's not rocket science. >> >> OK, so /you/ get to call it. As I suspected. > > Well, I didn't always do it that way. I used to do this: > > T *p = (T *)malloc(n * sizeof(T)); > > and then I discovered that the guys in comp.lang.c had a better way. I > saw the advantages of their way over mine, and I *learned*. So what did you write instead, sizeof(*p)? (Or, more likely, sizeof *p. Which once again highlights my point: was that dot a full stop at the end of the sentence, or did it represent a member select operator with a member name to follow? Again there's that fraction of a second of ambiguity.) But anyway, what would worry me about sizeof *p is that it looks like a pointer dereference of a pointer value that has not yet been initialised. > As a strategy, learning has much to commend it. I do learn, but with somewhat different results to you. I look at what we're trying to do with the above, and reduce it down to the minimum that will do the job. So it might be something like: T *p = new(); // or: T *p = new(n); Here new() is nothing to do with its C++ namesake. new() allocates one thing of type T, and new(n) allocates n consecutive ones. new() would be a special built-in function that can only appear on the right side of an assignment or initialisation operator (=). When used for 'proper' array pointers: T (*a)[] = new(n) then n represents the length of the array. That can also be written: T (*a)[n] = new() Then problems with sizeof disappear. Of course this is a 'new' idea that doesn't exist in C. Maybe an uglified version can just about be managed using macros, but then the simplicity is lost (it might easier to just use malloc and sizeof). So it could be something to implement elsewhere, where it might well end up being translated into C using normal malloc and sizeof (with parentheses even then). >> And presumably, if the language /required/ sizeof(...) in all cases, and >> I suggested the parentheses weren't always necessary (as it apparently >> makes all those things easy), then I'd still be wrong! > > If the language required sizeof to take parentheses in all cases, it > would be a language other than C (which does not have that requirement), > and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Such as it is. You'd be having the conversation with someone else complaining about having to put in all these bloody brackets. (With Richard Bos for example.) -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 15:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnvb01mftu.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90628 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> But anyway, what would worry me about sizeof *p is that it looks like a
> pointer dereference of a pointer value that has not yet been initialised.
Yes, that's exactly what it is. It's safe because sizeof doesn't
evaluate its argument. (Another way that sizeof differs from a
function call, and IMHO another reason to write it in a distinctive
manner.)
Unless the argument is a VLA. If p were an uninitialized object
of pointer-to-VLA type, that would be a problem. I've argued
elsewhere that it *shouldn't* be, but that's a separate issue,
and not something that's terribly likely to happen in practice.
I might start a new thread on that.
I won't reiterate the advantages of `sizeof *ptr` (or even
`sizeof (*ptr)`) over `sizeof (type-that-ptr-points-to)`.
[...]
--
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"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 00:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmmcla$2ft$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90628 |
On 19/07/16 22:46, BartC wrote: > On 19/07/2016 19:22, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 19/07/16 19:03, BartC wrote: >>> On 19/07/2016 18:20, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 19/07/16 17:49, BartC wrote: >>> >>>>> So who determines which is the Right way and the Wrong way? >>>> >>>> In this case, the easy-to-type, easy-to-read, easy-to-maintain, >>>> easy-to-get-right, easy-to-fix-if-you-typed-it-wrong way is the right >>>> way, and the stupid way is the wrong way. It's not rocket science. >>> >>> OK, so /you/ get to call it. As I suspected. >> >> Well, I didn't always do it that way. I used to do this: >> >> T *p = (T *)malloc(n * sizeof(T)); >> >> and then I discovered that the guys in comp.lang.c had a better way. I >> saw the advantages of their way over mine, and I *learned*. > > So what did you write instead, sizeof(*p)? How many times, BartC? How many times do I have to show you? T *p = malloc(n * sizeof *p); -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 19:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5793c3b6.1614828@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #90632 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > On 19/07/16 22:46, BartC wrote: > > So what did you write instead, sizeof(*p)? > > How many times, BartC? How many times do I have to show you? All the times, Richard. All the times. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 12:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln37n5o37s.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90615 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 19/07/2016 18:20, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 19/07/16 17:49, BartC wrote:
>>> So who determines which is the Right way and the Wrong way?
>>
>> In this case, the easy-to-type, easy-to-read, easy-to-maintain,
>> easy-to-get-right, easy-to-fix-if-you-typed-it-wrong way is the right
>> way, and the stupid way is the wrong way. It's not rocket science.
>
> OK, so /you/ get to call it. As I suspected.
Richard gets to express an opinion. It happens to be an opinion I agree
with, as do a lot of other people here.
> And presumably, if the language /required/ sizeof(...) in all cases, and
> I suggested the parentheses weren't always necessary (as it apparently
> makes all those things easy), then I'd still be wrong!
If the language required parentheses and you said they weren't required,
then of course you'd be wrong.
Write your code any way you like. If you post it here,
be prepared to have it criticized. If you see a use of sizeof
without parentheses that would be clearer with them, feel free to
point it out. I've seen no such uses other than ones that you've
contrived to make your point.
This:
x = y + z;
is perfectly clear to me, and to anyone who's reasonably familiar
with C. Someone who has trouble with that might prefer to write:
x = (y + z);
instead. They're free to do so, but I consider the parentheses
unnecessary; in fact they detract from the line's clarity.
This:
p = malloc(N * sizeof *p);
is perfectly clear to me, and to anyone who's reasonably familiar
with C. Someone who has trouble with that might prefer to write:
p = malloc(N * sizeof(*p));
instead. They're free to do so, but I consider the parentheses
unnecessary; in fact they detract from the line's clarity, though
not as badly as in the `x = y + z;` case.
Adding the extra parentheses is, in my considered opinion, a solution
for which there is no problem.
--
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"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 09:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnbn1toa0g.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90589 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 19/07/2016 15:59, Richard Heathfield wrote:
[...]
>> Any C programmer worth his or her salt can parse:
>>
>> T *new = malloc(n * sizeof *new);
>>
>> without any difficulty whatsoever.
>
> What about:
>
> T *new = malloc(sizeof *new*n);
Simple: Don't do that.
Do you really think that deliberately designing code so it's difficult
to read supports your argument?
If I saw your line of code in a real program, I'd wonder why the author
didn't add spaces around the second "*", and it would take me a little
longer than usual to parse it. I'd also spend some time verifying that
it's correct (that kind of error might indicate a programmer who doesn't
understand C syntax). And if I had the opportunity, I'd change it to
the form Richard used.
--
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"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 18:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnvazytr4i.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #90574 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 18/07/2016 17:46, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: >> >>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> >>>> Calm down. >>>> >>>> We're talking about whether to always have brackets following sizeof's >>>> argument. >>>> >>>> That is all... >>> >>> I agree. I completely disagree with BartC on the technical point being >>> discussed, but Richard Bos, you were out of line. >> >> I understand your reaction to the tone used in RB's message. I >> won't try to defend that. >> >> In terms of substance though I think his comments are pretty much >> right on the money. Just MO. > > RB's comments, shorn of the insults and expletives, were these: > > "Nobody sane will ever write code to this low a standard." > > "I am _not_ required to write my code to convenience complete imbeciles." He did say both of those things, although one of them was in a subthread parallel to the one I responded in. I agree with both sentiments. > (Well, most of the insults.) I'm not sure what the substance of these > amounts to, but if you think that is 'on the money' then OK ... > > Just to reiterate, this about whether someone writes: > > s*sizeof*f > > or: > > s*sizeof(*f) > > and I'm arguing for always using the second form rather than try and > make the first more readable with arbitrary white space. The problem is the supporting argument/example you gave is really dumb. Moreover it is typical. AFAICT most of your complaints about C boil down to simply not liking some of C's design choices. Nothing wrong with having personal opinions, but it seems like you present them as some sort of Universal Truth, supported by these contrived/silly/ridiculous/or-worse types of examples/arguments. Most people in the group have plenty of strong opinions, and don't mind expressing them, but at the same time I think it's more common than not to respect the opinions of others, even in the presence of disagreement. ISTM your behavior is an exception to that rule.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 11:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmss71$e8d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90743 |
On 22/07/2016 02:10, Tim Rentsch wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> RB's comments, shorn of the insults and expletives, were these: > He did say both of those things, although one of them was in > a subthread parallel to the one I responded in. I agree with > both sentiments. Hmm, yes I remember now you posting some code that was written more horizontally then vertically. AFAICT most of your complaints > about C boil down to simply not liking some of C's design > choices. Nothing wrong with having personal opinions, but > it seems like you present them as some sort of Universal Truth, > supported by these contrived/silly/ridiculous/or-worse types > of examples/arguments. Most people in the group have plenty > of strong opinions, and don't mind expressing them, but at > the same time I think it's more common than not to respect > the opinions of others, even in the presence of disagreement. > ISTM your behavior is an exception to that rule. I prefer it more when people do have some strong opinions of their own (even if they are opposite from mine) rather than simply stating that something is right because the Language Says So. /That/ would be more like presenting some aspect as a Universal Truth. Some might argue though that the Universe in this newsgroup must necessarily be bounded by the contents of the C Standard... -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 03:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <993ee960-ddaf-454c-a7db-26dccd0724f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90766 |
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:23:37 AM UTC+1, Bart wrote: > > I prefer it more when people do have some strong opinions of their own > (even if they are opposite from mine) rather than simply stating that > something is right because the Language Says So. > > /That/ would be more like presenting some aspect as a Universal Truth. > > Some might argue though that the Universe in this newsgroup must > necessarily be bounded by the contents of the C Standard... > There is such a thing as a misconception of fact, and in the context of this newsgroup that's likely to be a misconception about what the C standard says. There's also such as thing as agreed terminology. The problem there is that the standard so mis-uses common terms like "function", "array", "block" and so on that it's sometimes difficult to talk more generally without using these words in their normal senses. Then of course there are things which many, maybe most C programmer believe, but aren't actually facts beyond reasonable dispute.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 10:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnr3alinlo.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90767 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:23:37 AM UTC+1, Bart wrote:
>> I prefer it more when people do have some strong opinions of their own
>> (even if they are opposite from mine) rather than simply stating that
>> something is right because the Language Says So.
>>
>> /That/ would be more like presenting some aspect as a Universal Truth.
>>
>> Some might argue though that the Universe in this newsgroup must
>> necessarily be bounded by the contents of the C Standard...
>>
> There is such a thing as a misconception of fact, and in the context of this
> newsgroup that's likely to be a misconception about what the C standard
> says.
True.
> There's also such as thing as agreed terminology. The problem there is that
> the standard so mis-uses common terms like "function", "array", "block" and
> so on that it's sometimes difficult to talk more generally without using these
> words in their normal senses.
I do not agree that the standard "mis-uses" those terms. The
standard has clear and consistent definitions of all those terms.
You, on the other hand, frequently insist on using those same words
with your own idiosyncratic meanings, often without acknowledging
the inconsistency. It makes it difficult to discuss these concepts
*with you*. The rest of us are just fine.
[...]
--
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"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 12:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <582da236-f157-4151-bbd3-eab976b4665b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90796 |
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 6:34:02 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > I do not agree that the standard "mis-uses" those terms. The > standard has clear and consistent definitions of all those terms. > You, on the other hand, frequently insist on using those same words > with your own idiosyncratic meanings, often without acknowledging > the inconsistency. It makes it difficult to discuss these concepts > *with you*. The rest of us are just fine. > The word "function" in normal usage means something which maps input to output. The word "array" means a regular arrangement of data in memory. The word "block" means a unit of code with one point of entry and one point of exit. All used in different though related ways by C. Obviously a "function" can mean a social event, an "array" can mean a random collection and a "block" can mean a high rise housing development. That's not too confusing because the words are used in a totally different context.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-12 22:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <57856c88.335953@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #90217 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 11/07/2016 14:11, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > On 11/07/16 13:38, BartC wrote: > > >> But the way around it is to always > > > > There's nothing to get around. > > > >> follow 'sizeof' with parentheses so that a following * can't be a > >> multiply. > > > > Why add spurious parentheses? The * that follows sizeof can /never/ be a > > multiplication symbol, because sizeof is not a valid operand for > > multiplication. The /result/ that sizeof yields can be, but sizeof > > itself is a keyword, not a value. > > Spot the line with only one multiply in it rather than two: > > array = malloc(seoizf*soeizf*seiozf); No. Fuck you. I am _not_ required to write my code to convenience complete imbeciles. Grow a pair already, cry-baby. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web