Message-ID: <3EA97209.4BF7121D@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:36:09 -0400
From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
Organization: Ched Research
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: nmalloc revisited
References: <10304250425 DOT AA17241 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> <3EA8D56E DOT A34EDFBA AT yahoo DOT com> <7704-Fri25Apr2003175921+0300-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 02:27:58 -0400
> > From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
> > >
> > > New, non-standard stuff could be in a different header to avoid
> > > namespace pollution if desired (at least my 2 cents)
> >
> > I don't especially mind, but are we using the same definition of
> > 'standard'?  To me, anything that isn't in the C99 specification
> > is non-standard.
> 
> There are standards such as C9x and Posix, and then there's
> compatibility to other platforms.  If the definitions of macros,
> structures, and prototypes for malloc-debug functions appear in some
> headers on other platforms, we want them to be in those headers in our
> version.  That's because programs ported from those platforms will
> include those headers and assume that the necessary definitions are
> now visible to the compiler.

Is that objective harmed in any way by having the files separate
and #included in stdlib.h under the appropriate conditions?

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com) (cbfalconer AT worldnet DOT att DOT net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!