Message-ID:	<3EA97209.4BF7121D@yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:36:09 -0400
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:	<10304250425 DOT AA17241 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> <3EA8D56E DOT A34EDFBA AT yahoo DOT com> <7704-Fri25Apr2003175921+0300-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 02:27:58 -0400
> > From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
> > >
> > > New, non-standard stuff could be in a different header to avoid
> > > namespace pollution if desired (at least my 2 cents)
> >
> > I don't especially mind, but are we using the same definition of
> > 'standard'?  To me, anything that isn't in the C99 specification
> > is non-standard.
> 
> There are standards such as C9x and Posix, and then there's
> compatibility to other platforms.  If the definitions of macros,
> structures, and prototypes for malloc-debug functions appear in some
> headers on other platforms, we want them to be in those headers in our
> version.  That's because programs ported from those platforms will
> include those headers and assume that the necessary definitions are
> now visible to the compiler.

Is that objective harmed in any way by having the files separate
and #included in stdlib.h under the appropriate conditions?

-- 
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 -