Why 'life after free'.

[Matthew Farwell]

In article <quan.654673946 at sol> quan at sol.surv.utas.oz (Stephen Quan) writes:
> From: wuxing at comp.mscs.mu.edu (Xing Wu)
> >In article <quan.654410256 at sol> you write:
> >>  tmp = (char *) malloc(100);
> >>  for (i=0; i<=99 ; i++) *(tmp+i) = ch;
> >>  free(tmp);
> >>  return tmp;
> I normally do what you suggest, the reason why a brought up this issue is
> that if what I propose wasn't so unpredictable then I can have something
> like :
> 
>   printf("%s\n",funny('c'));
>   printf("%s\n",funny('x'));
> 
> Where funny will create a string of 100 c's or 100 s's.  The string is
> displayed in 'printf' (hopefully) and you don't need to worry about
> free-ing the memory.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but whats wrong with doing ....

char *
funny(c)
char c;
{
	static char a[100];
	int i;

	for (i=0 ; i<99 ; i++) a[i] = c;
	a[99] = '\0';
	return (&a[0]);
}

Dylan.
-- 
Matthew J Farwell                 | Email: dylan at ibmpcug.co.uk
The IBM PC User Group, PO Box 360,|        ...!uunet!ukc!ibmpcug!dylan
Harrow HA1 4LQ England            | CONNECT - Usenet Access in the UK!!
Phone: +44 81-863-1191            | Sun? Don't they make coffee machines?