This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: new vs malloc, was BUG - Cygwin to GNU CC compatibility
- From: "Al Slater" <al dot slater at scluk dot com>
- To: "'Samuel'" <samuel at socal dot rr dot com>,<cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:03:02 +0100
- Subject: RE: new vs malloc, was BUG - Cygwin to GNU CC compatibility
- Reply-to: <al dot slater at scluk dot com>
[SNIP]
>
> It sure surprises me that I was the only one that said
> something about the
> innacuracy; if such a thing were to be said in the
> comp.lang.c++ newsgroup
> then the remark would get more ridicule than I see people
> getting in this
> list about anything. Again, if you simply leave off the
> "multiple" (and Ross
> did not say "multiple") from what you said, your statement is highly
> inaccurate. Am I the only one in this list that knows this?
> If so then it is
> good that I am correcting this error. This is not a "C++ API / data
> structure philosophy debate"; it is not a matter of
> philosophy; it is a
> matter of fact. There have been more than one message
> recently asking C++
> questions that were not relevant to CygWin. I have not seen
> any messages
> saying that they were off-topic. So I do not appreciate being
> told that I
> should not post a small correction to a huge inaccuracy. I
> know that for
> sure the C++ experts in the comp.lang.c++ newsgroup often
> emphasize that for
> every "new" there must be one (and only one) "delete" and for
> every "new []"
> there must be one (and only one) "delete []", but that is
> such a basic thing
> that I do not need experts to tell me that.
>
> All C++ questions should be referred to a more appropriate
> list, newsgroup
> or forum, since the advice they get in the CygWin list is dangerous.
[SNIP]
No one replied because it is OFF TOPIC for this list
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/