Message-ID:	<3E7D3DF3.3CBF1838@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sat, 22 Mar 2003 23:54:11 -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:	<10303181605 DOT AA14400 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> <3E775688 DOT AC55F82B AT yahoo DOT com> <3E77E453 DOT A12179D3 AT yahoo DOT com> <9743-Wed19Mar2003183156+0200-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> <3E78B4BF DOT A8778A96 AT yahoo DOT com> <9003-Wed19Mar2003225200+0200-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> <3E790C18 DOT CFBB8117 AT yahoo DOT com> <7704-Sun23Mar2003060449+0200-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
> >
> > > > what about:
> > > >
> > > >   int malloc_debug(int level, FILE *f);
> > > >
> > > > where f == NULL is the present call, and something else sets the
> > > > output file.  Maybe we rename it _malloc_dbg and provide a macro:
> > > >
> > > >   #define malloc_debug(i) _malloc_dbg(i, NULL)
> > >
... snip ...
> 
> Perhaps just have
> 
>   int malloc_debug(int level);
> 
> and
> 
>   int _malloc_debug_with_file(int level, FILE *f);

What's the difference from the above macro definition except the
name of the system function?  If you want it more descriptive try
"_malloc_dbg_set_output", but I think it is excessively verbiose. 
Maybe "_mallocdbgf" or "_mallocdbgcnf" for configure.

At least the principle is set.  All we need is a name :-)

-- 
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 -