malloc and free

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Probably Chris meant to insert an
else { p = tmp; }
three lines up, instead.

Why, yes, yes I did ;( Thanks!

 

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

I don't find memmove any more obscure than memcpy, if anything I find it
less obscure because it gives defined results then memcpy invokes UB and
when memcpy does not invoke UB memmove behaves the same.

On the other hand, I imagine memmove requires some amount of extra processing
time in exchange for defined behavior...

 

[Micah Cowan]

This is bad advice if you need to compile with a C++ compiler:

But in that case, it would not be C code anymore. The advice is
perfectly fine for anyone writing C code.

(Great, not this discussion again...)

 

[Micah Cowan]

I don't want to discuss C++.
But *real* C programmers can't afford to ignore C++.
They must write C code which can be compiled by C++ compilers
as well as by C compilers.

sez you. There are many "*real* C programmers" on this NG that
sez otherwise. Unless you have a unique definition for "real" (or
"C programmer").

 

[Dave Vandervies]

sez you. There are many "*real* C programmers" on this NG that
sez otherwise. Unless you have a unique definition for "real" (or
"C programmer").

The ones who aren't complex, of course.

It's the simple C programmers that can't ignore C++.


dave
(gratuitiously abusing language since... maybe 1982?)

 

[Thomas Stegen]

The ones who aren't complex, of course.

It's the simple C programmers that can't ignore C++.

I think you mean irrational C programmers.

 

[Dan Pop]

This is bad advice if you need to compile with a C++ compiler:

What is a C++ compiler? If it is anything behaving like a conforming
standard C compiler, then my advice is excellent. If it is anything else,
it is off-topic in this newsgroup.

Dan

 

[Dan Pop]

But *real* C programmers can't afford to ignore C++.
They must write C code which can be compiled by C++ compilers
as well as by C compilers.

_____________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do not |
/ O O\__ | feed the |
/ \ | Trolls |
/ \ \|_____________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `'
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

Dan

 

[John Bode]

[snip]

I don't want to discuss C++.
But *real* C programmers can't afford to ignore C++.
They must write C code which can be compiled by C++ compilers
as well as by C compilers.

This is the single most asinine thing I've read all week.

Either you're writing C (in which case you use a C compiler) or C++
(in which case you use a C++ compiler). They're completely different
languages. You wouldn't require someone to write C code that also
compiles as Java, would you? How about C#?

I've worked on a number of projects that had both C and C++
components; we simply used the appropriate compiler for the given
language. I would have thought that was the obvious, logical
solution, rather than deliberately crippling our code to meet the
demands of two different compilers.

 

[Dave Vandervies]

I think you mean irrational C programmers.

That works too, but it doesn't follow quite as nicely from "not complex".
(Unless you can find another way to get from "real" to "irrational"?)


dave

 

[Mark Gordon]

On the other hand, I imagine memmove requires some amount of extra
processing time in exchange for defined behavior...

Yes, it does require extra checks so I still use memcpy when
performance matters *and* I can be certain not to have overlapping
source & destination.

 

[Thomas Stegen]

That works too, but it doesn't follow quite as nicely from "not complex".
(Unless you can find another way to get from "real" to "irrational"?)

I just thought real numbers, complex numbers and irrational numbers.

Maybe that is what you thought as well

 

[Dave Vandervies]

[about "real C programmers"]

I just thought real numbers, complex numbers and irrational numbers.

Maybe that is what you thought as well

Well, almost. I thought real and complex numbers (the complex numbers
are generally treated as the ones that aren't real, even though they
contain the reals as a subset), and then went from complex to simple
(to undo the "opposite meaning", y'see).

The problem with using irrational there is that irrational numbers
aren't generally considered as "not <something that's not real>", so
using that distinction didn't leave the same opportunity to get in some
mathematically rigorous wordplay at Tisdale's expense.


dave

 

[Allin Cottrell]

But *real* C programmers can't afford to ignore C++.
They must write C code which can be compiled by C++ compilers
as well as by C compilers.

A perfect occasion for that fine phrase, "arrant nonsense".

 

[nobody]

[about "real C programmers"]

I just thought real numbers, complex numbers and irrational numbers.

Maybe that is what you thought as well

Well, almost. I thought real and complex numbers (the complex numbers
are generally treated as the ones that aren't real, even though they
contain the reals as a subset), and then went from complex to simple
(to undo the "opposite meaning", y'see).

The problem with using irrational there is that irrational numbers
aren't generally considered as "not <something that's not real>", so
using that distinction didn't leave the same opportunity to get in some
mathematically rigorous wordplay at Tisdale's expense.

What about "surreal" ? Doesn't involve heavy math and triple indirection.
Should be good enough even for simple ones (programmers || trolls