From:	av568 AT rgfn DOT epcc DOT edu (Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: quick malloc question
Date:	5 Mar 1997 02:54:06 GMT
Organization:	The Rio Grande Free-Net, El Paso Community College, El Paso, TX
Lines:	23
Message-ID:	<5fin8e$q39@news.epcc.edu>
References:	<B0000041587 AT datasoft DOT datasoft DOT com DOT br> <5fdn2o$mvl AT freenet-news DOT carleton DOT ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	rgfn.epcc.edu
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Paul Derbyshire (ao950 AT FreeNet DOT Carleton DOT CA) wrote:

> "Cristovao Braga" (cbraga AT datasoft DOT com DOT br) writes:
> > char *p;
> > 
> > main ()
> >    {
> >       p = (char *) malloc (5 * 1024 * 1024);
> >    }

> Why the HELL do people keep writing things like (char *)malloc(x)????????

> GCC, and to my knowledge other compilers, allow any pointer to be assigned
> to a variable of type void * and conversely allow any variable of type void
> * to be assigned to any pointer, without casts.

Because it *ensures* that the code will work, even on non-ANSI compliant 
machines. Why the hell do you write "int main(void)" instead of "main()" 
of "void main(void)"? It ensures your code will work.

--
Beautiful Savior Evangelical Lutheran Church - av568 AT rgfn DOT epcc DOT edu
We have what you need-- A Savior!

- Raw text -