Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #11979

Re: Competing criteria

Show all headers | View raw

io_x wrote:
> "Richard Damon" <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> ha scritto nel
> messaggio news:j7vfkc$goj$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 10/22/11 5:33 PM, Ark wrote:
>> The rule I always use is a task is not allowed to fail, then it
>> can't call on anything that might fail. malloc, in general, has the
>> possibility to fail so needs to be avoided in tasks that can not
>> fail. free() is actually always safe, as free can never fail, and can
>> never cause another malloc to fail.
>
> i think some free() function can fail in the wrost way

Indeed free() can fail if cou give something not NULL which hasn't come from 
malloc(), calloc() or realloc() or had been free()'d already, in which case 
undefined behavoir occurs (and free() doesn't have means to report an error)

From a Linux man-page:
free() frees the memory space pointed to by ptr, which must have been 
returned by a previous call to malloc(), calloc() or realloc(). Otherwise, 
or if free(ptr) has already been called before, undefined behaviour occurs. 
If ptr is NULL, no operation is performed.



Bye, Jojo

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Competing criteria nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-21 14:49 -0700
  Re: Competing criteria Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-10-21 22:16 +0000
    Re: Competing criteria Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2011-10-22 14:06 -0400
      Re: Competing criteria Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-10-22 16:47 -0400
        Re: Competing criteria Ark <akhasin@macroexpressions.com> - 2011-10-22 17:33 -0400
          Re: Competing criteria Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-10-22 18:20 -0400
            Re: Competing criteria Ark <akhasin@macroexpressions.com> - 2011-10-22 21:29 -0400
            Re: Competing criteria "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-10-23 10:32 +0200
              Re: Competing criteria "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> - 2011-10-23 11:06 +0200
                Re: Competing criteria Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-10-23 09:09 +0000
                Re: Competing criteria "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-10-23 12:04 +0200
                Re: Competing criteria "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-10-27 08:44 +0200
                Re: Competing criteria Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-23 05:01 -0700
            Re: Competing criteria Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-10-23 08:29 -0400
              Re: Competing criteria Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-10-23 09:15 -0400
                Re: Competing criteria Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-23 06:24 -0700
                Re: Competing criteria Markus Wichmann <nullplan@gmx.net> - 2011-10-24 22:39 +0200
                Re: Competing criteria Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-10-24 17:10 -0700
                Re: Competing criteria Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-10-25 13:09 +0300
                Re: Competing criteria Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-26 00:23 -0700
      Re: Competing criteria Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-10-23 00:02 +0300
      Re: Competing criteria Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-10-24 20:10 +0000
        Re: Competing criteria Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-10-24 19:36 -0400
        Re: Competing criteria nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-25 10:07 -0700
          Re: Competing criteria Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-10-25 16:51 -0400
  Re: Competing criteria John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-10-21 22:37 +0000
  Re: Competing criteria Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-10-21 20:42 -0400

csiph-web