Re: [OT] C pointers: BSD versus Linux?

["Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <corecode@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 31.05.2006, at 20:37, jwatson@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Style 1:
> > time_t t*;
> > time(t);
> My experience is that *BSD's malloc and pointer stuff is designed to 
> be as
> safe as possible by default, and will try to fix and correct any common
> mistakes you will make.  The short answer is that BSD will figure out
> where you are screwing up and allow it to work. Linux gives you total
> freedom to screw your self over.


I can not agree with this.  BSD malloc() (or better: free()) is much 
more conservative, and lately our default even changed to abort on 
double free()s.  A lot of buggy software has double free()s and I think 
glibc doesn't even complain per default.

> Also, style 1 is technically "incorrect" since you never allocated the
> memory that t is pointing to before passing it into time().

maybe the compiler on BSD by chance put NULL into "t" and thus made it 
a valid parameter?

cheers
  simon

--
Serve - BSD     +++  RENT this banner advert  +++    ASCII Ribbon   /"\
Work - Mac      +++  space for low €€€ NOW!1  +++      Campaign     \ /
Party Enjoy Relax   |   http://dragonflybsd.org      Against  HTML   \
Dude 2c 2 the max   !   http://golden-apple.biz       Mail + News   / \

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part