Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:15:03 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: xmalloc and xfree
In-Reply-To: <199910111712.NAA25693@envy.delorie.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.991011191335.436G-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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


On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, DJ Delorie wrote:

> 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.

I'd rather expect C++ programs not to use xmalloc, but instead use 
operator new and catch its errors.  That's why I think the problem with 
ported programs is much less serious for C++.

Do you object to enabling the prototype under __cplusplus?