252

submitted 5 days ago by sjmarf@sh.itjust.works to c/programming_horror@programming.dev

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 13 points 5 days ago

You don't need to cast the return value from malloc.

[-] Subverb@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

This isn't malloc though. I have to assume the cast is because the user has experience with the output from an LLM being untrustworthy.

[-] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 days ago

you do in c++, no?

[-] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 days ago

In c++ you should use new.

[-] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 days ago

that is besides the point. You can still call malloc, it will still return void*, and it would still reqoire casting in c++

[-] addie@feddit.uk 10 points 5 days ago

True. Although given how easy it is to cast void pointers to the wrong damn thing, it would be nice if you did, makes refactoring much easier. Makes me appreciate std::any all the more.

[-] embed_me@programming.dev 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Void pointer should be avoided anyways. Even I find them rare and I mostly work in embedded RTOS

this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024

252 points (99.2% liked)

Programming Horror

1634 readers

1 users here now

Welcome to Programming Horror!

This is a place to share strange or terrible code you come across.

For more general memes about programming there's also Programmer Humor.

Looking for mods. If youre interested in moderating the community feel free to dm @Ategon@programming.dev

Rules

Keep content in english
No advertisements (this includes both code in advertisements and advertisement in posts)
No generated code (a person has to have made it)

Credits

Icon base made by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Vacant@programming.dev