Re: realloc_failed

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Ike Naar, Mar 30, 2011.

  1. Ike Naar

    Ike Naar Guest

    On 2011-03-29, Gordon Burditt <> wrote:
    > It appears that your code is scribbling on memory it doesn't own.
    > Fix that. It can cause malloc() and realloc() to malfunction.


    What makes you reach that conclusion? OP's problem looks more like
    an initialization failure (see elsethread), but of course I may
    have missed something.

    If you found a place where OP scribbled over non-owned memory,
    then it would have been helpful to indicate where that happens.
    It's easier to "fix that" if one knows what to fix.

    Oh, by the way, why are you always deleting attribution lines?
    Just curious. In any case, it makes the discussion harder to follow.

    Oh, by the way, please don't top post.
     
    Ike Naar, Mar 30, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. (Gordon Burditt) writes:
    > Ike Naar <> writes:
    >> (Gordon Burditt) writes:

    [...]
    >> Oh, by the way, why are you always deleting attribution lines?
    >> Just curious. In any case, it makes the discussion harder to follow.

    >
    > There's no proof that any of the attribution lines or From: lines
    > are accurate,


    True, but everybody knows that.

    > and no reason to blame some individual for a post which
    > he may or may not have anything to do with.


    Nonsense, as always. There are plenty of good reasons to make a
    reasonable attempt at proper attribution (all you have to do is *not*
    delete the attribution lines), and no good reasons to refrain from
    doing so.

    >> Oh, by the way, please don't top post.

    >
    > I didn't. My comments were placed AFTER a quote from the OP, which
    > I commented on.


    Yes. You then needlessly quoted several hundred lines of the original
    post.

    Just this once, I grant permission to quote this article without a
    proper attribution line, provided that this paragraph is quoted in full.
    I, Keith Thompson, , wrote this article.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
     
    Keith Thompson, Mar 31, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ike Naar

    Ike Naar Guest

    On 2011-03-31, Gordon Burditt <> wrote:
    > There's no proof that any of the attribution lines or From: lines
    > are accurate, and no reason to blame some individual for a post which
    > he may or may not have anything to do with.


    Is there any proof that the 600+ lines of text you quoted are accurate?
    Why snip the attribution lines, but not the text?
     
    Ike Naar, Mar 31, 2011
    #3
  4. In article <>,
    Keith Thompson <> wrote:
    > (Gordon Burditt) writes:
    >> Ike Naar <> writes:
    >>> (Gordon Burditt) writes:

    >[...]
    >>> Oh, by the way, why are you always deleting attribution lines?
    >>> Just curious. In any case, it makes the discussion harder to follow.

    >>
    >> There's no proof that any of the attribution lines or From: lines
    >> are accurate,

    >
    >True, but everybody knows that.
    >
    >> and no reason to blame some individual for a post which
    >> he may or may not have anything to do with.

    >
    >Nonsense, as always. There are plenty of good reasons to make a
    >reasonable attempt at proper attribution (all you have to do is *not*
    >delete the attribution lines), and no good reasons to refrain from
    >doing so.


    Chick fight!

    --
    "The anti-regulation business ethos is based on the charmingly naive notion
    that people will not do unspeakable things for money." - Dana Carpender

    Quoted by Paul Ciszek (pciszek at panix dot com). But what I want to know
    is why is this diet/low-carb food author doing making pithy political/economic
    statements?

    Nevertheless, the above quote is dead-on, because, the thing is - business
    in one breath tells us they don't need to be regulated (which is to say:
    that they can morally self-regulate), then in the next breath tells us that
    corporations are amoral entities which have no obligations to anyone except
    their officers and shareholders, then in the next breath they tell us they
    don't need to be regulated (that they can morally self-regulate) ...
     
    Kenny McCormack, Mar 31, 2011
    #4
  5. Ike Naar

    James Kuyper Guest

    On 03/30/2011 09:38 PM, Gordon Burditt wrote:
    [Quoting Ike Naar, without proper attribution:]
    >> Oh, by the way, why are you always deleting attribution lines?
    >> Just curious. In any case, it makes the discussion harder to follow.

    >
    > There's no proof that any of the attribution lines or From: lines
    > are accurate, and no reason to blame some individual for a post which
    > he may or may not have anything to do with.


    That's nonsense. Is there any reason to think that any of the other
    lines you quoted is any more accurate than the From: line? From some of
    the people who post here, the From: is probably the single most accurate
    thing in their message.

    You're not blaming an individual, you're merely specifying how the
    unknown individual who posted the message identified himself or herself.
    No one who is at all familiar with the Internet would assume that this
    identification is necessarily correct; but as long at it's consistent
    (as it normally is), it can still be useful information. Even if, in
    your opinion, a particular attribution seems much more likely than
    normal to have been spoofed, you can express that judgment best by
    modifying the wording normally used to report it: "someone claiming to
    be <...> wrote:". That's still more useful than no attribution at all.

    Permission to quote any of my response without proper attribution is denied.

    --
    James Kuyper
     
    James Kuyper, Mar 31, 2011
    #5
  6. Ike Naar

    Phil Carmody Guest

    James Kuyper <> writes:
    > On 03/30/2011 09:38 PM, Gordon Burditt wrote:
    > [Quoting Ike Naar, without proper attribution:]
    > >> Oh, by the way, why are you always deleting attribution lines?
    > >> Just curious. In any case, it makes the discussion harder to follow.

    > >
    > > There's no proof that any of the attribution lines or From: lines
    > > are accurate, and no reason to blame some individual for a post which
    > > he may or may not have anything to do with.

    >
    > That's nonsense. Is there any reason to think that any of the other
    > lines you quoted is any more accurate than the From: line? From some
    > of the people who post here, the From: is probably the single most
    > accurate thing in their message.


    You do realise you're battling this, don't you?
    http://www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/flame_77.php
    You too will fail.

    Phil
    --
    I find the easiest thing to do is to k/f myself and just troll away
    -- David Melville on r.a.s.f1
     
    Phil Carmody, Apr 1, 2011
    #6
  7. Ike Naar

    James Kuyper Guest

    On 03/31/2011 07:01 PM, Phil Carmody wrote:
    > James Kuyper<> writes:
    >> On 03/30/2011 09:38 PM, Gordon Burditt wrote:
    >> [Quoting Ike Naar, without proper attribution:]
    >>>> Oh, by the way, why are you always deleting attribution lines?
    >>>> Just curious. In any case, it makes the discussion harder to follow.
    >>>
    >>> There's no proof that any of the attribution lines or From: lines
    >>> are accurate, and no reason to blame some individual for a post which
    >>> he may or may not have anything to do with.

    >>
    >> That's nonsense. Is there any reason to think that any of the other
    >> lines you quoted is any more accurate than the From: line? From some
    >> of the people who post here, the From: is probably the single most
    >> accurate thing in their message.

    >
    > You do realise you're battling this, don't you?
    > http://www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/flame_77.php


    Not quite. When I asked Keith about it, he indicated that Gordon has
    honored Keith's notices denying permission to quote Keith's messages
    without proper attribution. Gordon has honored those notices mainly by
    not replying at all; but he used to quote Keith's comments frequently
    without attribution, so he has paid attention to those notices.

    > You too will fail.


    Probably.

    --
    James Kuyper
     
    James Kuyper, Apr 2, 2011
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.

Share This Page