Paul Eggert wrote: > > For example, if my package never calls malloc (0) but desires portability > > to native Windows, would I want that *every* malloc call on *all* > > non-glibc platforms goes through hoops before it reaches the malloc() > > function in libc? > > I would want that, yes, because that'd be more reliable than what we > were doing. Any performance penalty on non-GNU platforms is surely > insignificant in real applications, and so is outweighed by the > reliability improvement.
I don't disagree — as I can't measure reliability quantitatively. Just wanted to give the reasoning that had led to the existing distinction between 'malloc-posix' and 'malloc-gnu'. Bruno
