Always cast malloc

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Always write:

double* x = (double*)malloc(n*sizeof(double));

instead of


double* x = malloc(n*sizeof(*x));

 

[Artie Gold]

Always write:

double* x = (double*)malloc(n*sizeof(double));

instead of


double* x = malloc(n*sizeof(*x));

Always refrigerate tomatoes. Makes just about as much sense.

--aG

 

[Jalapeno]

Always write:

double* x = (double*)malloc(n*sizeof(double));

instead of


double* x = malloc(n*sizeof(*x));

This is secret code. I'm telling Ashcroft on you.

 

[Mike Wahler]

Always write:

double* x = (double*)malloc(n*sizeof(double));

instead of


double* x = malloc(n*sizeof(*x));\

Slow day today, Robert?

-Mike

 

[Keith Thompson]

Always write:

double* x = (double*)malloc(n*sizeof(double));

instead of

double* x = malloc(n*sizeof(*x));

Is this a deliberate troll? If so, please stop wasting our time and
confusing the newbies. If you really have a point, please explain it.

A quick response just in case you're serious about this:

You're wrong.

 

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Slow day today, Robert?

I dug this up out of another thread: why still use C?
Sidney Cadot and Mark McIntyre are having a slow day as well.

 

[Jack Klein]

Always write:

double* x = (double*)malloc(n*sizeof(double));

instead of


double* x = malloc(n*sizeof(*x));

To quote the disheveled E. Robert Tisdale:

This is an obvious troll. Please ignore it.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ ftp://snurse-l.org/pub/acllc-c++/faq

 

[Mike Wahler]

I dug this up out of another thread: why still use C?

And presented it here without context.

Sidney Cadot and Mark McIntyre are having a slow day as well.

So what's your motivation for posting a couple lines from
another thread without context?

I find this quite ironic from one who is very quick
to cry 'troll' around here.

-Mike

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Always write:

double* x = (double*)malloc(n*sizeof(double));

instead of


double* x = malloc(n*sizeof(*x));

The latter is clearly superior, for reasons which have been presented ad
nauseam in this newsgroup for years. That Tisdale recommends the former,
then, comes as no surprise. His advice may safely be ignored.

 

[Irrwahn Grausewitz]

Always write:

double *x = malloc(n * sizeof *x);

instead of


double* x = malloc(n*sizeof(*x));

 

[Dan Pop]

Always write:

double* x = (double*)malloc(n*sizeof(double));

instead of


double* x = malloc(n*sizeof(*x));

_____________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do not |
/ O O\__ | feed the |
/ \ | Trolls |
/ \ \|_____________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `'
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

Dan

 

[The Clap]

_____________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do not |
/ O O\__ | feed the |
/ \ | Trolls |
/ \ \|_____________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `'
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

Dan

http://goatse.cx/

* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *
g g
o / \ \ / \ o
a| | \ | | a
t| `. | | : t
s` | | \| | s
e \ | / / \\\ --__ \\ : e
x \ \/ _--~~ ~--__| \ | x
* \ \_-~ ~-_\ | *
g \_ \ _.--------.______\| | g
o \ \______// _ ___ _ (_(__> \ | o
a \ . C ___) ______ (_(____> | / a
t /\ | C ____)/ Dan \ (_____> |_/ t
s / /\| C_____) Pop | (___> / \ s
e | ( _C_____)\______/ // _/ / \ e
x | \ |__ \\_________// (__/ | x
* | \ \____) `---- --' | *
g | \_ ___\ /_ _/ | g
o | / | | \ | o
a | | / \ \ | a
t | / / | | \ |t
s | / / \__/\___/ | |s
e | / / | | | |e
x | | | | | |x
* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t e x *

http://goatse.cx/

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

The latter is clearly superior, for reasons which have been presented ad
nauseam in this newsgroup for years. That Tisdale recommends the former,
then, comes as no surprise. His advice may safely be ignored.

I think that is a syntax error. It should be "His advice may not
be taken in safety". A Karnaugh map of the available actions may
make it clearer.

 

[Sidney Cadot]

Hi Mark,

Slow day today, Robert?

How about we put an end to our mutual barrage of repetitive statements?
Hells bells, I'll even leave the final round to you. I'm sure we can
find another topic later on to slug it out

Best regards, Sidney