From owner-freebsd-bugs  Fri Oct  6 07:43:49 1995
Return-Path: owner-bugs
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id HAA29929
          for bugs-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 07:43:49 -0700
Received: from halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.159])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id HAA29918
          for <bugs@freebsd.org>; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 07:43:43 -0700
Received: by halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu; (5.65/1.1.8.2/19Aug95-0530PM)
	id AA04586; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 10:43:37 -0400
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 10:43:37 -0400
From: "Garrett A. Wollman" <wollman@lcs.mit.edu>
Message-Id: <9510061443.AA04586@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu>
To: Andrew White <awhite@dca.net>
Cc: bugs@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: bug with gcc 2.6.2?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.951005215533.9169F-100000@dca.net>
References: <199510051000.AA00067@Sysiphos>
	<Pine.BSF.3.91.951005215533.9169F-100000@dca.net>
Sender: owner-bugs@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

<<On Thu, 5 Oct 1995 21:56:13 -0400 (EDT), Andrew White <awhite@dca.net> said:

> Thanks for your response.  Of course you are right, a null string and a 
> null pointer are not the same.

> However, it would be nice if the str* functions would not SIGSEV when 
> called with a null pointer, but rather failed more nicely.

And waste everyone else's time in correctly-written programs?  I think
not.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman   | Shashish is simple, it's discreet, it's brief. ... 
wollman@lcs.mit.edu  | Shashish is the bonding of hearts in spite of distance.
Opinions not those of| It is a bond more powerful than absence.  We like people
MIT, LCS, ANA, or NSA| who like Shashish.  - Claude McKenzie + Florent Vollant