Brian Gough wrote: > Jochen Küpper writes: > > > I checked the source code for gsl_matrix_free and it will fail if passed > > > a null pointer. > > > > Shouldn't the GSL free-routines be changed like the following patch? > > My thinking on that was that for most people calling the free() > functions on a null pointer is usually an error rather than by design, > so it's helpful to get a segmentation fault. > > In general, I've never been convinced that free'ing a null pointer is > particularly useful as opposed to just doing "if (p) free(p)" in the > application. A check in the _free codes would also add a small overhead. I think there's an arguable case for a delete() function that checks for a null pointer. But GSL is a C library, not a C++ library and there's no new() function to go along with it, which ought to can throw a bad_alloc exception, not available in C.
In any case there's no difficulty to write your own inline new() and delete() functions as needed. -- JDL _______________________________________________ Help-gsl mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gsl
