if (!pointer) as portable as if (pointer == NULL)
Fri Apr 13 04:30:36 AEST 1990
>In article <1461 at tkou02.enet.dec.com> diamond at tkou02.enet.dec.com (diamond at tkovoa) writes:
>>In article <656 at hades.OZ> greyham at hades.OZ (Greyham Stoney) writes:
>>
>> if (buffer) free(buffer)
>>
>>This is also portable, and almost readable. Again, to be really readable,
>>you should still compare to NULL, but I grant that it would make your
>>source code longer this time.
>
>How about just a:
> free(buffer)
>
>The manual pages I know allow a NULL pointer and doing nothing in this case.
>Is this generally true ?
Using the free function with a NULL pointer may be o.k with some
compilers, but don't try that with other functions since you may get
unpredictable results. Using MSC 5.1 I had a few calls which didn't
check to see if the pointer was NULL prior to calling fclose(fileptr),
and fclose ended up writing garbage into the interrupt vector table.
--
Michael Morris, Strategic Mapping Inc. {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!slp!mikem
More information about the Comp.lang.c
mailing list