[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why is malloc being defined as rpl_malloc ??
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: Why is malloc being defined as rpl_malloc ?? |
Date: |
04 May 2003 20:27:07 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 |
"Dr. David Kirkby" <address@hidden> writes:
> I would think that if the macro is looking for a GNU compatible
> malloc, it should have GNU in the name somewhere.
I wouldn't mind changing its name to AC_FUNC_MALLOC_GNU. Could
you propose a complete patch along those lines? Of course the old
name should be retained for backward-compatibility reasons, but
only the new name should be encouraged.
> http://www.testdrive.compaq.com/
SourceForge.net has a compile farm with DEC Alpha's running Debian
GNU/Linux 2.2, as well as several other platforms like MacOS X,
Solaris, etc. However, Tru64 is definitely weirder than Debian so I
suppose it's nice to know about Compaq's web site.
Personally I've never used any of these "test drive" sites; too much
hassle. I have enough trouble managing and using my own machines.
> I bought the Dec Alpha since these machines tend to show up
> problems (especially floating point) that tend to be missed by other
> machines.
The Alpha has some really nice floating-point features. If you want
to do interval arithmetic, for example, it's much nicer than the x86.
I long ago lost interest in porting to any machines that don't conform
to the IEEE-754 floating point standard (ISO/IEC 559:1989). However,
if you're worried about floating-point portability to weird hosts, you
should definitely port to IBM mainframes, Crays, and the like, and you
should look into the ISO standard for porting to weird floating-point
machines (ISO/IEC 10967-1:1994).
Re: Why is malloc being defined as rpl_malloc ??, Jim Meyering, 2003/05/05