Date:	Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:52:44 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-Id:	<1858-Tue18Mar2003085243+0200-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<3E7616BC.E333FA24@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> (message from Richard
	Dawe on Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:41:00 +0000)
Subject:	Re: nmalloc revisited
References:	<200303141601 DOT RAA26911 AT lws256 DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se> <3E721051 DOT 645AA67D AT yahoo DOT com> <3E74B558 DOT 3629CBA9 AT yahoo DOT com> <1438-Sun16Mar2003203300+0200-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> <3E74E454 DOT BC734243 AT yahoo DOT com> <3E753E85 DOT 81830981 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <3E755250 DOT 837B3606 AT yahoo DOT com> <3E75B36C DOT 6327581D AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <3E75E6E1 DOT A3989CD6 AT yahoo DOT com> <3E7616BC DOT E333FA24 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:41:00 +0000
> From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
> > >
> > > FWIW they look like they've been defined to be similar to the interfaces
> > > provided by glibc. Was near-compatibility with the glibc interface one
> > > of the goals, when the interface was designed?
> > 
> > They have.  I would not have designed them that way.
> 
> Um, I was hoping the original designer would answer that question. I believe
> that was Eli. Eli?

I don't remember if I followed glibc; I might have (I do have its
sources on my machine, so I might have looked there).

In any case, I consider compatibility with glibc, whether intentional
or not, to be A Good Thing.

- Raw text -