From:	"Matthew Conte" <spam AT someone DOT else>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References:	<36A13B53 DOT D1A46262 AT bellsouth DOT net> <36A67204 DOT 5AF0 AT gec DOT nospam DOT com>
Subject:	casting return of malloc() (was: Re: Memory Access Problem)
Lines:	16
X-Newsreader:	Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Message-ID:	<25wp2.212$YL3.4320@typhoon.nycap.rr.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jan 1999 02:15:26 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host:	24.92.58.97
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT nycap DOT rr DOT com
X-Trace:	typhoon.nycap.rr.com 916884926 24.92.58.97 (Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:15:26 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:15:26 EDT
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

[ e-mail address munged to thwart evil spambots - reply to group ]

Edward Hill wrote in message <36A67204 DOT 5AF0 AT gec DOT nospam DOT com>...
[...]
>  You shouldn't cast the return of malloc, it was orig used
>  to silence compiler warning messages but since ANSI/ISO and
>  the void * type it has become redundant and sometimes masks
>  errors.

Is this true?  It is bad practice to cast the return of malloc()?  I've
never seen this discussed anywhere else.

Thanks,
Matt.

- Raw text -