From:	"doug" <deleveld AT dds DOT nl>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: new vs malloc
Date:	19 Feb 2000 13:44:37 GMT
Organization:	none
Lines:	14
Message-ID:	<01bf7ba9$8fb5a980$c3247d81@default>
References:	<38AD8622 DOT AE067F97 AT tiscalinet DOT it> <004101bf7a97$06ff2ca0$cff0fea9 AT stevenhe> <88lt6e$9pj$1 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	client36-195.oprit.rug.nl
X-Trace:	info.service.rug.nl 950967877 16921 129.125.36.195 (19 Feb 2000 13:44:37 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	newsmaster AT rug DOT nl
NNTP-Posting-Date:	19 Feb 2000 13:44:37 GMT
X-Newsreader:	Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

> In a nutshell: if you write C++, use new. If you write C, use
> malloc(), and *don't* cast the return value, as it will actually hide
> potential problems, instead of fixing any.

Can you give me an example.   I like my C programs to compile
with as few warnings as possible, even if they are compiled as C++
and I cast the returned value from malloc to achieve this.  Can you
give me an example of where this casting may cause problems in
a C program?

Thank you,

Doug Eleveld

- Raw text -