Is foo a pointer in your example? Is free(NULL) not a valid operation?

▲ rstuart4133 4 days ago | parent [-]

Yes `foo` is a pointer.

`free(NULL)` is harmless in C89 onwards. As I said, programmers freeing NULL caused so many issues they changed the API. It doesn't help that `malloc(0)` returns NULL on some platforms.

If you are writing code for an embedded platform with some random C compiler, all bets on what `free(NULL)` does are off. That means a cautious C programmer who doesn't know who will be using their code never allows NULL to be passed to `free()`.

In general, most good C programmers are good because they suffer a sort of PTSD from the injuries the language has inflicted on them in the past. If they aren't avoiding passing NULL to `free()`, they haven't suffered long enough to be good.

▲ lelanthran 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> That means a cautious C programmer who doesn't know who will be using their code never allows NULL to be passed to `free()`.

If your compiler chokes on `free(NULL)` you have bigger problems that no LLM (or human) can solve for you: you are using a compiler that was last maintained in the 80s!

If your C compiler doesn't adhere to the very first C standard published, the problem is not the quality of the code that is written.

> If they aren't avoiding passing NULL to `free()`, they haven't suffered long enough to be good.

I dunno; I've "suffered" since the mid-90s, and I will free NULL, because it is legal in the standard, and because I have not come across a compiler that does the wrong thing on `free(NULL)`.

▲ random_human_ 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

So what would be the best practice in a situation like that? I would (naively?) imagine that a null pointer would mostly result from a malloc() or some other parts of the program failing, in which case would you not expect to see errors elsewhere?

	▲	rstuart4133 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> imagine that a null pointer would mostly result from a malloc() or some other parts of the program failing, in which case would you not expect to see errors elsewhere? Oh yes, you probably will see errors elsewhere. If you are lucky it will happen immediately. But often enough millions of executed instructions later, in some unrelated routine that had its memory smashed. It's not "fun" figuring out what happened. It could be nothing - bit flips are a thing, and once you get the error rate low enough the frequency of bit flips and bugs starts to converge. You could waste days of your time chasing an alpha particle. I saw the author of curl post some of this code here a while back. I immediately recognised the symptoms. Things like: `if (NULL == foo) { ... }` Every 2nd line was code like that. If you are wondering, he wrote `(NULL == foo)` in case he dropped an `=`, so it became `(NULL = foo)`. The second version is a syntax error, whereas `(foo = NULL)` is a runtime disaster. Most of it was unjustified, but he could not help himself. After years of dealing with C, he wrote code defensively - even if it wasn't needed. C is so fast and the compilers so good the coding style imposes little overhead. Rust is popular because it gives you a similar result to C, but you don't need to have been beaten by 10 years of pain in order to produce safe Rust code. Sadly, it has other issues. Despite them, it's still the best C we have right now.