Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:04:50 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com
Message-Id: <7704-Sun23Mar2003060449+0200-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3E790C18.CFBB8117@yahoo.com> (message from CBFalconer on Wed, 19
	Mar 2003 19:32:24 -0500)
Subject: Re: nmalloc revisited
References: <10303181605 DOT AA14400 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> <3E775688 DOT AC55F82B AT yahoo DOT com> <3E77E453 DOT A12179D3 AT yahoo DOT com> <9743-Wed19Mar2003183156+0200-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> <3E78B4BF DOT A8778A96 AT yahoo DOT com> <9003-Wed19Mar2003225200+0200-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> <3E790C18 DOT CFBB8117 AT yahoo DOT com>
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

> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:32:24 -0500
> From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
> 
> > > what about:
> > >
> > >   int malloc_debug(int level, FILE *f);
> > >
> > > where f == NULL is the present call, and something else sets the
> > > output file.  Maybe we rename it _malloc_dbg and provide a macro:
> > >
> > >   #define malloc_debug(i) _malloc_dbg(i, NULL)
> > 
> > We could do this with the special GCC builtin that returns the number
> > of arguments with which a function was called.
> 
> Never heard of that.  I prefer to keep everything as standard as
> possible.  I am even unhappy about using the GCC varargs macros,
> but I will wait for heavy C99 availability before taking them
> out.  Are you agreeing to that change in the malloc_debug call
> and/or the use of _malloc_dbg()?

Perhaps just have

  int malloc_debug(int level);

and

  int _malloc_debug_with_file(int level, FILE *f);