[OT] C pointers: BSD versus Linux?

Simon 'corecode' Schubert corecode at fs.ei.tum.de
Wed May 31 15:09:39 PDT 2006

On 31.05.2006, at 20:37, jwatson at xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Style 1:
time_t 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?

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   / \
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pgp00000.pgp
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: "Description: This is a digitally signed message part"
URL: <http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20060531/545a028c/attachment-0021.obj>

More information about the Users mailing list