home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Offline 2 / NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso / news / comp / std / c++ / 537 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1996-08-06  |  1.4 KB
  1. Path: engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM!taumet!clamage
  2. From: Kerry Kimbrough <kk@onr.com>
  3. Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
  4. Subject: Re: The realloc question: rationale?
  5. Date: 25 Feb 1996 16:44:48 GMT
  6. Organization: CAE Plus Inc.
  7. Approved: clamage@eng.sun.com (comp.std.c++)
  8. Message-ID: <31301BFE.450A@onr.com>
  9. References: <4g903m$7g8@mari.onr.com> <4gl2ad$lqi@hermes.synopsys.com>
  10. NNTP-Posting-Host: taumet.eng.sun.com
  11. Mime-Version: 1.0
  12. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
  13. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
  14. X-Nntp-Posting-Host: onramp2-11.onr.com
  15. X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I)
  16. Content-Length: 529
  17. Originator: clamage@taumet
  18.  
  19. Joe Buck wrote:
  20. > 
  21. > You can, of course, call the C realloc().
  22.  
  23. But then crash? My understanding is that mixture of alloc/free and friends 
  24. with new/delete is not guaranteed to be valid and therefore is discouraged. 
  25. Not true?
  26.  
  27. If true, then realloc'ing a new'ed object ain't kosher, and there goes the 
  28. hope for specializing STL to implement realloc efficiently, i.e. w/o copy and 
  29. delete.
  30.  
  31. -- 
  32.  
  33. Regards,
  34.  
  35. Kerry Kimbrough 
  36.  
  37. ...................................................
  38. Home: kk@onr.com           Work: kerry@cae-plus.com
  39.  
  40. [ To submit articles: Try just posting with your newsreader.
  41.               If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  42.   FAQ:    http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html
  43.   Policy: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html
  44.   Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
  45. ]
  46.