Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:59:21 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <7704-Fri25Apr2003175921+0300-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <3EA8D56E.A34EDFBA@yahoo.com> (message from CBFalconer on Fri, 25
	Apr 2003 02:27:58 -0400)
Subject: Re: nmalloc revisited
References: <10304250425 DOT AA17241 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> <3EA8D56E DOT A34EDFBA AT yahoo DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 02:27:58 -0400
> From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
> > 
> > New, non-standard stuff could be in a different header to avoid
> > namespace pollution if desired (at least my 2 cents)
> 
> I don't especially mind, but are we using the same definition of
> 'standard'?  To me, anything that isn't in the C99 specification
> is non-standard.

There are standards such as C9x and Posix, and then there's
compatibility to other platforms.  If the definitions of macros,
structures, and prototypes for malloc-debug functions appear in some
headers on other platforms, we want them to be in those headers in our
version.  That's because programs ported from those platforms will
include those headers and assume that the necessary definitions are
now visible to the compiler.