Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id:	<5.1.0.14.1.20020807011931.00a056b0@pop.softhome.net>
X-Sender:	karheng AT pop DOT softhome DOT net
Date:	Wed, 07 Aug 2002 01:25:42 +0800
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	Chan Kar Heng <karheng AT softhome DOT net>
Subject:	OT: new vs malloc, was BUG - Cygwin to GNU CC compatibility
In-Reply-To:	<200208060151.SAA30406@ca.sandia.gov>
References:	<F1813ooYFbW7xV2zLwF0001ed5a AT hotmail DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0

greetings.

sorry, please don't fry me for OT post. :)
just a short answer (perhaps private) would do for me.

<snip>
>Well, in C++, as opposed to on earth, I suppose, you're encouraged to
>use new and delete for all memory management in preference to malloc
>and free. Note that in C++, a struct and a class are exactly the same
</snip>

i'm one of those still actively using malloc/free as i often use realloc
too.

i'd gladly use new and delete if i could find an equivalent of realloc()..
... any advice?

rgds,

kh


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -