Message-ID:	<3E74E454.BC734243@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:53:40 -0500
From:	CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
Organization:	Ched Research
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
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>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:33:12 -0500
> > From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
> >
> > What I don't see in the htm file I posted before is any process of
> > setting those hooks described.  Nor do I find any libc/malloc.h on
> > my system.
> 
> libc/malloc.h is new with the development version of the library, so
> you can only find it in the DJGPP CVS.

Then why is anyone worrying about compatibility with it?  I
developed nmalloc to satisfy the well published and known standard
interface, and got people screeching about failure to mate with
other modules.  I finally found a definition of those modules, and
am even attempting to provide something close, but now you tell me
those are for the inner-sanctum only and are not even published. 
Why not define a proper interface first, and go from there.  I
started this with the sysquery provisions in nmalloc, in such a
manner that ANY debugger could be built without unclean knowledge
of the malloc system guts.

I feel a good healthy rant coming on.

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com) (cbfalconer AT worldnet DOT att DOT net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!

- Raw text -