Re: Sv: I'm back

[Christian Reiniger <warewolf@mayn.de>]

Bjarke Hammersholt Roune wrote:
>>"Be liberal in what you accept and strict in what you produce"
>>
>I should put more consideration into the way I express myself via Email.
>People often get the feeling I'm trying to tell them I know everything and
>they should just do what I say because I know best. When I read my own
>Emails, I often see what they mean. I really do not mean it that way,
>though.

I don't have that problem with your mails. The only thing is that sometimes
(like in that mail) I don't see your (perfectly valid) point because some
critical explanaiton is missing or hidden in a quite verbose essay ;)

In this case it's that:

>Checking that a pointer that, according to the specification, must not be 0
>(NULL) really isn't 0 (NULL), is unnessecary, since that should not happen.
>Passing 0 (NULL) anyway must be the result of undefined behavior (ie, a bug)
>on the side of the calling code.

So - you're right ;)

>>>Ok, perhaps just "Memory corrupted".
>>>
>>I somehow can't imagine a case where to print this.
>>
>I see what you mean. Allocators could incorporate features to check for
>memory corruption, though. They don't, though.

What do you mean with memory corruption? Alpha particles switching bits in
RAM (well, sh*t happens) or other apps overwriting part of our mem (can't
happen in a real OS)?


	Christian
-- 

Drive A: not responding...Formatting C: instead