Re: Why is malloc being defined as rpl_malloc ??

[Mr E_T]

On Mon, 5 May 2003, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:

> Paul Eggert wrote:
> >
> > "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?
>

The test actually checks for a zero length bug in some implementations of
malloc and the autoconf docs recommend a malloc.c file along these lines -

     #if HAVE_CONFIG_H
     # include <config.h>
     #endif
     #undef malloc

     #include <sys/types.h>

     void *malloc ();

     /* Allocate an N-byte block of memory from the heap.
        If N is zero, allocate a 1-byte block.  */

      void *
     rpl_malloc (size_t n)
     {
       if (n == 0)
         n = 1;
       return malloc (n);
     }

as you can see it is just a wrapper script.

This is straight from the autoconf info document.
If your code uses malloc then just to be safe - check that it wont bomb if a
zero length is malloced.

If the AC_FUNC_MALLOC test says to use malloc.c then you have the zero length
bug.
 and add
prog_LIBADD = @LIBOBJS@
to your Makefile.am
 and the above file in your sources.

-- 
regs MR E_T
_______________________
\                      \
  \   OOHH I hate TYPOS  \
    \                      \
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~