On 03/16/2017 02:24 PM, Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
>
> The reason this is wrong is that C by design treats data and functions
> as living in separate realms, i.e. its virtual machine has a Harvard
> architecture. One of the consequences of this is that pointers to
> functions and pointers to dat
Am 17.03.2017 um 09:30 schrieb Corinna Vinschen:
On Mar 17 00:49, Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
[...]
Wasn't that supposed to go to the newlib list where this has been
discussed originally?
Ah, of course it was. That explains the confusion, too. Sorry for that.
I'll repost there.
HBB
--
On Mar 17 00:49, Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
> Am 16.03.2017 um 22:46 schrieb L A Walsh:
> > Going by subj and talk below, this is a bit confusing...
> >
> > But it looks like you are testing 'free' for a value?
>
> Not really. The idea is to test free for _exixtence_. Which only makes
> sense
Am 16.03.2017 um 22:46 schrieb L A Walsh:
Going by subj and talk below, this is a bit confusing...
But it looks like you are testing 'free' for a value?
Not really. The idea is to test free for _exixtence_. Which only makes
sense in case of weak symbol support getting involved. In other
s
Going by subj and talk below, this is a bit confusing...
But it looks like you are testing 'free' for a value?
Isn't standard 'free' declared to take 1 arg and
return void?
If you aren't talking standard 'free()', then
nevermind...
Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
[Sorry, forgot to reply-all...]
[Sorry, forgot to reply-all...]
Am 15.03.2017 um 23:48 schrieb Jeffrey Walton:
Since Coverity is
complaining about an implicit conversion, maybe the following will
help to avoid the implicit part (and sidestep the finding):
if (free != NULL)
break;
Or perhaps:
if ((void*)free
6 matches
Mail list logo
