From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Sep 19 11:57:40 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id LAA23539
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 11:57:40 -0700
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA23534
          for <hackers@freefall.freebsd.org>; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 11:57:38 -0700
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id LAA10331; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 11:54:27 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199509191854.LAA10331@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: why is this not a bug in namei?
To: davidg@root.com
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 11:54:27 -0700 (MST)
Cc: terry@lambert.org, hackers@freefall.freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199509190607.XAA03876@corbin.Root.COM> from "David Greenman" at Sep 18, 95 11:07:03 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 431       
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> >What if I only want to instrument malloc() and free() in one source file?
> 
>    That's a silly argument. The namespace will already be messed up with the
> global macros - I'd hardly call that an "improvement".

#undef FREE
#define	FREE(x,y)	myfree(x,y)

...

#undef free		<--- Bzzzzzzt


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.