Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID: <3E763DA5.21CFD646@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:27:01 +0000
From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.23 i586)
X-Accept-Language: de,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: nmalloc revisited
References: <200303141601 DOT RAA26911 AT lws256 DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se> <3E721051 DOT 645AA67D AT yahoo DOT com> <3E74B558 DOT 3629CBA9 AT yahoo DOT com> <1438-Sun16Mar2003203300+0200-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> <3E74E454 DOT BC734243 AT yahoo DOT com> <3E753E85 DOT 81830981 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <3E755250 DOT 837B3606 AT yahoo DOT com> <3E75B36C DOT 6327581D AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <3E75E6E1 DOT A3989CD6 AT yahoo DOT com> <3E7616BC DOT E333FA24 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <3E762E23 DOT A2F38193 AT yahoo DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

CBFalconer wrote:
> 
> Richard Dawe wrote:
> > CBFalconer wrote:
> > >
> > [snip]
> >
> > You said:
> >
> > "I developed nmalloc to satisfy the well published and known standard
> > interface, and got people screeching about failure to mate with other
> > modules. I finally found a definition of those modules, and am even
> > attempting to provide something close, but now you tell me those are
> > for the inner-sanctum only and are not even published."
> >
> > I was pointing out where you could get the the definition of the
> > standard interface from: the code in CVS.
> 
> The standard interface is in the ISO standards document.  This is
> the one thing that has to be met.
[snip]

What I meant by "standard" was the malloc debugging interface (the point of
contention). OK, maybe I wasn't that clear.

[snip]
> I find DJGPP to be a fundamentally good and reasonably efficient
> system.  I saw a glaring flaw, and rather than bitch incessantly,
> I fixed it with, I believe, sound and clear code.  Apparently very
> few care to even look at the result.

I think everyone appreciates your effort, but no-one has enough time to look
at it properly. That's a shame.

I'd love to have a look at it, but I have a hundred other things on my plate
(including trying to find a job).

> I am still willing to take a shot at a near compatible debug
> interface, as I proposed with a previous message (see the
> malldbg.h header).

That would certainly remove one thing stopping nmalloc's adoption, I believe.

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]