Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990927210324.009b8270@dce03.ipt.br>
X-Sender: csrabak AT dce03 DOT ipt DOT br
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:03:24 -0300
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
From: "Cesar S. Rabak" <csrabak AT ipt DOT br>
Subject: Re: problem with new malloc.c attn: Eli Zaretskii
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990927094315.8548E-100000@is>
References: <01JGFEX6A3QM8WVZGM AT SLU DOT EDU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

At 09:43 27/09/99 +0200, you wrote:
>
>On Sun, 26 Sep 1999 GAMMELJL AT SLU DOT EDU wrote:
>
>>      When I #include malloc.c in my source file, I have no idea why
>> the symifier reports a _free statement at line 312 of my source code.

Folks, I don't know if we're missing something here, but if one includes a
source "malloc.c" in its code, wouldn't it have as well an implementation
of "free"?

If so, it makes sense for me symifier reports _free in your (included!)
source code.

my 2 cents.

Cesar