begin Rod Roark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Stirring up some dust... my 1978 K&R mentions alloc() and > calloc() but not malloc(). Then I have this 1985 "Advanced > UNIX - A Programmer's Guide" which does talk about malloc(). wow -- my gut reaction was wrong! okay, so there is some kind of basis for that statement. thanks, rod!
btw, is alloc() == alloca()? > In 2003, I think malloc() is pretty safe. :-) heh. i would think a prof would steer students to malloc() to avoid the overhead of clearing memory if it's not necessary. consider the dates you give, it still seems like a strange thing to say... pete > -- Rod > > On Wednesday 19 March 2003 06:08 pm, Peter Jay Salzman wrote: > > i've heard this from two people now. > > > > some students are being taught they should stay clear of malloc() and > > instead use calloc() because calloc() is the "old school" way of getting > > memory dynamically. they're taught that malloc() may not be present in > > all implementations of the C library. again, because calloc() is "old > > school". presumably, malloc() is ... new fangled. ;) > > > > actually, both people used the words "old school", so i'm assuming > > that's some kind of quote by the professor. > > > > just for my own self-edification, does anyone know anything about this > > "old school" and "new school" business? i've never heard of it before. > > > > pete > > _______________________________________________ > vox-tech mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech -- Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D _______________________________________________ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
