www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
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 |
Reply-To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
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
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |