From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>
Message-ID: <c8WdnTjEyppu7dbd4p2dnA@comcast.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <20040307113209.GA18849@melkki.cs.Helsinki.FI>
Subject: Re: [9fans] making emalloc a library function
Date: Mon,  8 Mar 2004 10:25:57 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 22f1e094-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Einar Karttunen wrote:
> 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. 

It is a *very* bad idea to change the behavior of malloc().
Your program might link with some library that knows how to
recover when malloc() reports failure, and if you change
malloc() to act like emalloc() you will break that library.

There should be no problem adding emalloc() to the system C
library.