4 ms·
It's sloppy coding and not portable. If you really don't want to check for malloc() return value because you consider that it shouldn't fail (or that you won't
by simias 6y ago
It's sloppy coding and not portable. If you really don't want to check for malloc() return value because you consider that it shouldn't fail (or that you won't be able to recover from it anyway) just implement an xmalloc() that just aborts on failure and do that. At least it'll crash "cleanly" this way.
- mcpcpc 6y agowill try to address the malloc concerns asap