Re: [9fans] making emalloc a library function

[David Presotto <presotto@closedmind.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 274 bytes --]

If its just a flag, some libraries will start to depend on the
behavior and noone will be able to write programs that use the
libraries and still can survive running out of memory.  I think
we should just bite the bullet and add e(malloc,realloc,mallocz)
to the library.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3023 bytes --]

From: Einar Karttunen <ekarttun@cs.helsinki.fi>
To: Plan9 ML <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: [9fans] making emalloc a library function
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 13:32:09 +0200
Message-ID: <20040307113209.GA18849@melkki.cs.Helsinki.FI>

Hello

Quite many programs define emalloc, which does the same thing. I was
thinking of ripping these out and replacing with a library.

I have two alternative routes. Either make libemalloc which contains
emalloc, estrdup and so on or add a flag which makes libc malloc behave
like emalloc. 

The first way would give programs freedom, but library code would still
use raw malloc instead of the emalloc. The second solution would be
harder for programs wishing to use both emalloc and malloc (of course
this would be still possible), but it would be more general... 
The changes would break no existing code in either case. 
Should I go forward with either idea?

- Einar Karttunen