X-Authentication-Warning: ieva01.lanet.lv: pavenis owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:58:31 +0300 (WET)
From: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
To: Felix Natter <f DOT natter AT ndh DOT net>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: xmalloc and xfree
In-Reply-To: <wk9059ewc3.fsf@mail.ndh.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.9910120953290.180422-100000@ieva01.lanet.lv>
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



On 11 Oct 1999, Felix Natter wrote:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> writes:
> 
> > Please look at stdlib.h, and you will see that the prototype of xmalloc 
> > is commented out there.  There's an explanation there about the reasons.
> 
> thanks for all answers, the
> problem has been solved already by
> uncommenting the prototypes of xmalloc
> and xfree in include\stdlib.h.

Better way is to include these definitions in Your source
(or Your include file) instead of messing with stdlib.h.
If You're using modified stdlib.h You'll have problems 
compiling source on not modified system.

> 
> the question now is rather if the
> djgpp distribution should leave
> those lines commented, because it
> will not work with the strict
> checking of gcc 2.95.

I think it's best to leave them commented out. 

> I would like to discuss that issue,
> but I do not know why you uncommented them
> in the first place.
> 
> btw: there is another thing:
> the file cxxfilt.exe is included in two zip's:
> bnu281b.zip    55808  12-31-97 14:33   bin/cxxfilt.exe
> gpp2951b.zip   157302  09-24-99 02:14   bin/cxxfilt.exe
> and both seem to work! (I've unpacked the files in a different
> order, and it works as well)

Use newer one. However if You are not using it at all, then this all
doesn't matter

Andris