From -4546284810846608390 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1149ec,f5b50f79e3b33c8d X-Google-Attributes: gid1149ec,public X-Google-Thread: f78e5,c0143c56db298752 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-09-14 22:48:46 PST Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.std.c++ Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!panix!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!hunts.x.co.uk!scone.london.sco.com!clive From: clive@sco.com (Clive D.W. Feather) Subject: Re: malloc calls FROM the standard library (was: Re: Question on 5.2.3.) Organization: Santa Cruz Operation Ltd., Watford, United Kingdom Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 07:11:31 GMT Message-ID: References: <1994Sep10.033223.23015@nlm.nih.gov> <352ps8$j32@reuter.cse.ogi.edu> <354jbs$54q@ritz.cec.wustl.edu> Lines: 18 Xref: bga.com comp.std.c:2938 comp.std.c++:4278 In article <354jbs$54q@ritz.cec.wustl.edu>, John Andrew Fingerhut wrote: > However, the victim of both of these situations will find out about it > pretty quickly. However, the Standard cannot rely on this, hence its wording. Another case is that of monolithic shared libraries. Some implementations of shared libraries link the whole library into one block, resolving all internal references. So if a library function refers to "malloc", it will get the one in the library, no matter whether or not there is a user function called "malloc". This arrangement also conforms to the Standard. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Santa Cruz Operation | If you lie to the compiler, clive@sco.com | Croxley Centre | it will get its revenge. Phone: +44 1923 813541 | Hatters Lane, Watford | - Henry Spencer Fax: +44 1923 813811 | WD1 8YN, United Kingdom | <= NOTE: NEW PHONE NUMBERS