Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2003/03/17/16:27:08
Hello.
CBFalconer wrote:
>
> Richard Dawe wrote:
> > CBFalconer wrote:
> > >
> > [snip]
> >
> > You said:
> >
> > "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."
> >
> > I was pointing out where you could get the the definition of the
> > standard interface from: the code in CVS.
>
> The standard interface is in the ISO standards document. This is
> the one thing that has to be met.
[snip]
What I meant by "standard" was the malloc debugging interface (the point of
contention). OK, maybe I wasn't that clear.
[snip]
> I find DJGPP to be a fundamentally good and reasonably efficient
> system. I saw a glaring flaw, and rather than bitch incessantly,
> I fixed it with, I believe, sound and clear code. Apparently very
> few care to even look at the result.
I think everyone appreciates your effort, but no-one has enough time to look
at it properly. That's a shame.
I'd love to have a look at it, but I have a hundred other things on my plate
(including trying to find a job).
> I am still willing to take a shot at a near compatible debug
> interface, as I proposed with a previous message (see the
> malldbg.h header).
That would certainly remove one thing stopping nmalloc's adoption, I believe.
Bye, Rich =]
--
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]
- Raw text -