From 4333224284527924399 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,176c9dc06a6729eb X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-29 02:46:03 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Ken Alverson" Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: why doesn't delete NULL the pointer? Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:45:30 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA Approved: Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++ Message-ID: References: <3C9DD892.94860335@acm.org> <3C9E5921.735FEB25@acm.org> <3CA063FF.3C2EE83A@acm.org> <3CA0FD94.A13F8343@acm.org> <3CA26183.B5822E43@acm.org> X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 1017398735 mail2news:7810 mail2news mail2news.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mail2News-Path: news.demon.net!mulga.cs.mu.oz.au X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Mar 2002 07:09:14 GMT NNTP-Posting-User: kla4@dsl-65-186-37-105.telocity.com X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Lines: 37 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.std.c++:10284 "Pete Becker" wrote in message news:3CA26183.B5822E43@acm.org... > Ken Alverson wrote: > > "Pete Becker" wrote in message > > news:3CA0FD94.A13F8343@acm.org... > > > > > > Having delete set pointers to null doesn't check anything. > > > > No, but most common platforms will flag a null dereference. Putting a > > canary in the stack doesn't check anything either, but coupled with a > > validity check it can catch errors. Setting the pointer to null doesn't > > check anything, but coupled with hardware that traps access violations it > > can catch errors. > > > > If you're trying to argue that it isn't reasonable on all platforms because > > we can't assume protected memory and therefore it shouldn't be mandated, > > that's fine. If you're trying to argue the effect is negative rather than > > positive, I disagree. > > > > I'm just pointing out the flaw in your purported analogy. I still feel my analogy is valid, but this really isn't going anywhere, so I'll drop the issue. Ken --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html ]