From:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id:	<10304211406.AA25239@clio.rice.edu>
Subject:	Re: nmalloc revisited
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:06:55 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To:	<3EA380A9.A8CA5365@yahoo.com> from "CBFalconer" at Apr 21, 2003 01:24:57 AM
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version:	1.0
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

> You mean you are ready to incorporate it?  This was intended to
> allow others to thrash it, and expose any crawling creatures with
> more than four legs or less than one.

Martin Stromberg ran it as his default malloc in his CVS tree
for quite some time.  

The only way to get a more extensive test is to put it in an 
alpha test of the entire build suite.  So in a word, yes - if
we could get the issues resolved I'd want to incorporate it
(which is why I'm so bitchy about the compatibilty/docs).

I'd still like to make sure all the tests added since V2.03
(for things like fluffy 2GB+ mallocs) are fixed.

- Raw text -