Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:12:23 -0400
Message-Id: <199910111712.NAA25693@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
CC: djgpp-workers AT Delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.991011190233.436C-100000@is> (message from Eli
	Zaretskii on Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:03:55 +0200 (IST))
Subject: Re: xmalloc and xfree
References:  <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 991011190233 DOT 436C-100000 AT is>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


What I meant was that I expect many C++ programs being *ported* to
djgpp to provide their own (conflicting) prototypes for xmalloc/xfree,
as they would also provide their own implementations of those also,
and would need their own prototypes for other OSs.

Interestingly enough, Linux provides *three* conflicting prototypes
for xmalloc in various non-standard headers (on my system, at least).