Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: September 2000:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: TODO
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: TODO

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Jeff Mallatt <jjm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: TODO
From: Jules Bean <jules@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 14:23:15 +0100

On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 08:15:39AM -0400, Jeff Mallatt wrote:
> At 2000/09/22 06:49 , Jules Bean wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 12:45:45PM +0200, Raimar Falke wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 10:56:58AM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> >> > Instead use a 'constructor' function
> >> > 
> >> > struct locus make_locus(int x,int y) {
> >> >   struct locus l;
> >> >   l.x=x; l.y=y;
> >> >   return l;
> >> > }
> >> 
> >> AFAIK this is wrong. The variable l is created on the stack which is
> >> destroyed at the return. You have to do return a newly allocated part of
> >> memory. Using this you will get some problems with bookkeeping since C has
> >> no GC.
> >
> >Nope.
> >
> >The above will make another copy of 'l' and return that.
> 
> At risk of showing my age...  Raimar would be correct, if we were using
> original K&R C.  But, since we require ANSI C, struct assignments and
> returns work just fine.

Surely it was never the case that structures were silently converted
to pointers, rendering the above case dangerous?

I thought that in K&R C returning a complex type was simply invalid,
not dangerous..

Jules



[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]