Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 15:27:52 -0600 From: Chris Costello <chris@calldei.com> To: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@technokratis.com> Cc: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why not another style thread? (was Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen getgrent.c) Message-ID: <20001217152752.E54486@holly.calldei.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012171624260.533-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com> References: <20001217151735.D54486@holly.calldei.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012171624260.533-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday, December 17, 2000, Bosko Milekic wrote: > Agreed. However, in the kernel, all free()s should be made as in (1), > in my opinion. (2) is dangerous, and (3) would just obfuscate the code. > (I know this does not apply to the commit, but should be noted) Yes, I agree; however free() in the kernel is an entirely different case and is not governed by the C standard. If you ask anyone in comp.lang.c, they'll tell you that our kernel is only written in a language _similar_ to C, and I can understand that, because many standard C functions behave differently in the kernel. (malloc and free come to mind, obviously.) -- +-------------------+------------------------+ | Chris Costello | Don't stop at one bug. | | chris@calldei.com | | +-------------------+------------------------+ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001217152752.E54486>