Re: Compiling C++ modules

[marty fouts]

On 4/24/06, Martin Mares <mj@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> > Oh, and yeah, a = b + c *is* more readable than
> >
> > a = malloc(strlen(b) + strlen(c));
> > strcpy(a,b);
> > strcat(a,c);
> >
> > and contains fewer bugs ;)
>
> Actually, it contains at least the bug you have made in your C example,
> that is forgetting that malloc() can fail. So can string addition, if
> allocated dynamically.

It's too small of a fragment to tell whether or not appropriate
exception handling has been set up, but yeah, it needs a try/catch to
be safe.  That's *1* of the bugs in the c example.  It's the one they
share.

It's not the only one in the C code, though, as Willy Tarreau pointed
out, the malloc idiom is wrong, since it doesn't allocate space for
the terminating null.

Of course, the C fragment has the implicit problem of who will do the
associated free to avoid the memory leak, where the C++ fragment has
the issue of garbage collection...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/