[antlr-interest] Updates for release 3.2 of the C Target

[Gavin Lambert]

At 13:05 24/09/2009, Jim Idle wrote:
 >Some platforms define this to be undefined though. Remember 
there
 >are lots if embedded systems that use this. Hence the 
qualification.
 >I think it would have been better to define free(NULL) as safe
 >myself but early Lib C would crash if you did this and I think 
it
 >was C++ that first took a stand?

I haven't looked at the standards recently, but from what I recall 
"delete NULL;" is guaranteed safe but "free(NULL);" wasn't.

I definitely recall seeing some static testers and malloc 
replacements (some for performance, some for allocation debugging) 
that reacted badly to use of "free(NULL);" (sometimes just a 
failed assertion, sometimes worse).