Re: stdlib.h i386 and alpha differences! was: Bug#22650: xcircuit: nonmaintainer upload for Alpha patches
On Wed 20 May 1998, James Troup wrote:
> Paul Slootman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > The malloc.h should never hurt, that's been available for as long as
> > I can remember (well, almost :-)
> Umm, why _are_ you #including <malloc.h>? Colour me stupid, but I was
> under the distinct impression one #includes <stdlib.h> for a malloc
> prototype, and this seems to be born out by both the manpage and the
> glibc info documentation. Surely something as basic as this doesn't
> vary on the alpha?
Apparently it _does_ :-( I also read the manpage for malloc, included
stdlib.h, and saw that the warnings didn't go away. I then looked into
/usr/include/stdlib.h and saw that there were no declarations for any
alloc routines. Not having an i386 available at home to compare, I
grepped for malloc in /usr/include and came up with malloc.h.
I've now looked at stdlib.h on i386, and that _does_ declare malloc...
The only difference I can imagine is that Alpha actually uses libc6.1
instead of plain libc6, but I still find it strange that stdlib.h
differs. Maybe I should consult libc6 gurus?
I've CC'ed the alpha mailing list, maybe someone there can shed some
light on this matter.
home: email@example.com | work: firstname.lastname@example.org
http://www.wurtel.demon.nl | Murphy Software, Enschede, the Netherlands
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org