From owner-cvs-include Tue Nov 15 10:44:04 1994 Return-Path: cvs-include-owner Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id KAA10356 for cvs-include-outgoing; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 10:44:04 -0800 Received: from sovcom.kiae.su (sovcom.kiae.su [144.206.136.1]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA10342; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 10:43:50 -0800 Received: by sovcom.kiae.su id AA02571 (5.65.kiae-2 ); Tue, 15 Nov 1994 21:36:09 +0300 Received: (from ache@localhost) by astral.msk.su (8.6.8/8.6.6) id VAA01045; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 21:29:52 +0300 To: Nate Williams , Paul Traina Cc: CVS-commiters@freefall.cdrom.com, cvs-include@freefall.cdrom.com References: <199411151717.JAA02754@precipice.Shockwave.COM> In-Reply-To: <199411151717.JAA02754@precipice.Shockwave.COM>; from Paul Traina at Tue, 15 Nov 1994 09:17:18 -0800 Message-Id: Organization: Olahm Ha-Yetzirah Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 21:29:52 +0300 X-Mailer: Mail/@ [v2.29 FreeBSD] From: "Andrew A. Chernov, Black Mage" X-Class: Fast Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include malloc.h Makefile Lines: 27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1424 Sender: cvs-include-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In message <199411151717.JAA02754@precipice.Shockwave.COM> Paul Traina writes: >Searching back through my ugly USG memory, malloc.h is _intended_ to only >be included if you're linking against the SystemV libmalloc, you weren't >SUPPOSED to use it unless you were doing so, because all the diags weren't >there and the internal structures between the dynamic allocation code in >libc and libmalloc were completely different. The USG libmalloc was the >fast-but-bloated-and-stupid malloc, while the libc malloc was the one normal >mortals would use. It is untrue, it needed for just simple malloc(), check Linux box f.e. >One of the biggest problems I have with malloc.h is that there is a conflict >between declaring malloc as returning type char * and void *. You really want >malloc to be defined as returning void *, and that's how it SHOULD be defined >in malloc.h, but almost everyone defines it as char * for stupid historical >reasons. If you define it one way, and someone else does it the other way, >you generate an error or a warning. There is no conflicts, just the same prototypes from stdlib.h copied. -- Andrew A. Chernov : And I rest so composedly, /Now, in my bed, ache@astral.msk.su : That any beholder /Might fancy me dead - FidoNet: -- temp down -- : Might start at beholding me, /Thinking me dead. RELCOM Team,FreeBSD Team : E.A.Poe From "For Annie" 1849