Xref: news-dnh.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:4390
From: "Gordon L. Scott" <Gordon AT apis DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: (none)
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 96 09:30:36 GMT
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <821439036.snews.post.Gordon@apis.demon.co.uk>
References: <DKzMM1 DOT KrA AT jade DOT mv DOT net> <4d3kiv$qv7 AT agate DOT berkeley DOT edu>
Reply-To: Gordon Scott <Gordon AT apis DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

In article <4d3kiv$qv7 AT agate DOT berkeley DOT edu>
           korpela AT islay DOT ssl DOT berkeley DOT edu "Eric J. Korpela" writes:

> In article <DKzMM1 DOT KrA AT jade DOT mv DOT net>,  <kagel AT quasar DOT bloomberg DOT com> wrote:
> >
> >       if (!my_pointer)
> >               my_pointer = (my_struct_t *)malloc( sizeof (my_struct_t) ); 
> >
> >Or BETTER CODE but equivalent:
> >
> >       if (my_pointer == (my_struct_t *)NULL)
> 
> Is this really better?  Could option 1 fail?  I thought the C standard
> guaranteed that the top option would work.
> 
> Eric

The readability is better but the following typo is *not:*

       if (my_pointer = (my_struct_t *)NULL)

Fortunately, most modern compilers warn about this.

-- 
Gordon Scott          Gordon AT apis DOT demon DOT co DOT uk   Compuserve 100332,3310
                      Gordon AT multitone DOT co DOT uk
Basingstoke Beekeeper Beekeeper AT apis DOT demon DOT co DOT uk