Re: Setting memory allocators for library functions.

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Seebach writes
:
>In message <9631.983048712@critter>, Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
>>No it is not and it never was.
>
>The C committee believes it is.

The C committee doesn't deal with operating systems or the real world
for that matter.  They only interest them selves with a programming
language.

I think there is a language thing you don't understand here.

If a car is advertised as "up to 18 km/l" that means that they
will guarantee that you will never ever see it doing better.
It doesn't mean that you will ever see that level of performance.

Like wise malloc(3) will never return a pointer which it _knows_
you cannot use, but it may not have the information that enables
it to determine that you cannot use it and thus unknowingly
pass the pointer to you, even though you cannot use it.

EOS from here.

--
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED]         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message