[COFF] Re: [TUHS] Re: Minimum Array Sizes in 16 bit C (was Maximum)

Moving to COFF ,.. From: "Rich Salz" &lt;rich.salz(a)gmail.com&gt; To: "TUHS main list" &lt;tuhs(a)tuhs.org&gt; Cc: "Douglas McIlroy" &lt;douglas.mcilroy(a)dartmouth.edu&gt; Sent: Monday, September 30, 2024 4:03:15 PM Subject: [TUHS] Re: Minimum Array Sizes in 16 bit C (was Maximum) On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 3:12 PM Steffen Nurpmeso < steffen(a)sdaoden.eu > wrote noone ever told them that even the eldest C can be used in a safe way; Perhaps we have different meanings of the word safe. void foo(char *p) { /* interesting stuff here */ ; free(p); } void bar() { char *p = malloc(20); foo(p); printf("foo is %s\n", p); foo(p); } Why should I have to think about this code when the language already knows what is wrong. No one would make the claim that programming in machine "language" is safe. No one would make the claim that programming in assembly "language" is safe. I've always viewed C as a portable assembler. I think the real issue has nothing to do with the "safety" of C, but rather the "safety" of your-choice-of-C-libraries-and-methods. My $.02 Jim