X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10203021633.AA16645@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Malloc/free DJGPP code
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:33:53 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <3C80E4AF.BB20511F@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> from "Richard Dawe" at Mar 02, 2002 02:41:51 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Precedence: bulk

Richard Dawe wrote:
> Personally I think we should go for the faster patch - the first one - since
> the code overhead doesn't look that great.

Martin Str|mberg replied:
> I think this one is best. Short and to the point.

Eli asked to see the one Martin likes, but hasn't commented (didn't like
the faster patch so much) - maybe he didn't like the one liner either :-)
Or is too busy to think ;-)

The patch Richard likes is the one which Eric Rudd tested.  I did light
testing on both.

If anyone else has an opinion let me know - I'd like to pick one and
commit today.  Or add the other one in the source as an ifdef 0?  In comment?

We've been sitting on it for about 3 weeks without a decision...