Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!gatech!uflorida!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: Shrinking with realloc Message-ID: <10711@smoke.BRL.MIL> Date: 11 Aug 89 21:10:40 GMT References: <26328@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <1431@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> <26362@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 7 In article <26362@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> signup@cs.ucla.edu writes: >[no_move_realloc] seems easy to provide; was it ever considered? No, and it is unlikely that it would have been included in the Standard even if it had been proposed. This is the first time I've ever even heard a complaint about this facet of realloc()'s (existing) design. It doesn't seem like a significant deficiency in existing practice..