Re: What is wrong with malloc? (Was: So You Think You Can Const?)

On 1/8/25 09:42, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

On 08/01/2025 09:46, David Brown wrote:

...

People who say they want to write strictly
standards-conforming code, especially C90, so that it will run
everywhere, misunderstand the relationship between the C standards and
real-world tools.

 
So, now that I have qualified it with "any device coming with a C
compiler (that is not too broken)", would you think coding it in "ANSI
C" makes some sense?

I would agree with what you wrote, but probably not with what you meant.
The first C standard, C89, was approved by ANSI. Later on, almost
exactly the same standard was approved as C90 by ISO. They had to add
three sections at the beginning to meet ISO requirements on how
standards are organized. The result is that every section number from
C89 corresponds to a section number 3 higher in C90.
Since that time, every new version of the C standard has first been
adopted by ISO, and then approved without changes by ANSI. Both
organizations have a policy that the new version of a standard replaces
the old one, which is no longer in effect. Therefore, ANSI C should,
properly, refer to the current latest version of C that has been adopted
by ANSI, which is C2023. I suspect that you were using "ANSI C" to refer
to C89.