Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Wasn't the point of separating xalloc-die from the xmalloc module to
>> allow applications to supply its own xalloc_die function?
>
> Such applications can now use
>
> gnulib-tool --avoid=xalloc-die
>
> See http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnul
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Why was a hard dependency on xalloc-die added?
Because xvasprintf.c calls xalloc_die(), and the majority of applications
don't have their own xalloc_die substitute.
> Wasn't the point of separating xalloc-die from the xmalloc module to
> allow applications to supply its o
Simon Josefsson wrote:
>Sorry, it seems the xalloc-die logic has changed, so my patch may be
>wrong. Specifically:
>
>2005-07-15 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * modules/xalloc (Depends-on): Add xalloc-die.
> * modules/xvasprintf (Depends-on): Add xalloc-die.
>
>I can't find th
Sorry, it seems the xalloc-die logic has changed, so my patch may be
wrong. Specifically:
2005-07-15 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* modules/xalloc (Depends-on): Add xalloc-die.
* modules/xvasprintf (Depends-on): Add xalloc-die.
I can't find the discussion behind this change
