>> what is any of this for in the first place?
>
>You mean why do we allos someone to define lt_dlmalloc, lt_dlrealloc,
>and lt_dlfree? I don't know :)
yes, thats precisely what i mean. what problem is this attempting to
solve? some bizarre platform where ltdl.c can't call malloc()?
--p
___
On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 12:32:46PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
> >Because ltdl.h already states that libltdl relies on a featureful
> >realloc, let's just set lt_dlrealloc = realloc and test for a
> >featureful realloc in ltdl.m4. Let's recommend that if anyone changes
> >at least one of lt_dlmalloc,
>Because ltdl.h already states that libltdl relies on a featureful
>realloc, let's just set lt_dlrealloc = realloc and test for a
>featureful realloc in ltdl.m4. Let's recommend that if anyone changes
>at least one of lt_dlmalloc, lt_dlrealloc, or lt_dlfree, then they
>should also change them all.
On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 12:39:32AM -0600, Rob Browning wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > So, if we replace malloc, we then need a table of pointers and their
> > size. Worth it?
>
> If we're going to be using it for anything substantial, I tend to
> think this would be *extremely* unwise. W
