Exactly. The patch that will go in shortly has apr_sms_calloc. It will also have an autoconf check for calloc :)
Thanks for the prod on CTR, expect something soon. david ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "APR Development List" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 8:50 AM Subject: standards (was: Re: Memory Renaming (try 2)) > On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 05:07:59PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > >... > > IMHO, calloc is in the same league as malloc, free, realloc. ISO C > > requires calloc as it does for the other three. For the standard case, > > you shouldn't need to emulate these on all but the most brain dead > > platforms. These are the four that are required by C99 (and I believe > > C89 does too - I just bought the 554-page C99 standard for $18 from > > ansi.org because we keep having these debates about what is in the > > standard or not...). It seems silly to implement a memory system that > > is not a superset of what is offered by the base language itself. > > > > And, I think that all of the other memory systems will just have to > > have the same contract as ISO C's for these functions (i.e. they have > > to act the same, but they can grab or free the memory however they > > wish). So, if someone calls apr_sms_calloc, they better return back a > > memory space of the specified size zeroed out (or NULL if no more space > > is available) - no matter what the underlying system is (shared memory, > > kernel, user space, etc.). > > Can we *please* stop talking about standards? > > 1) we don't work with standard conformant systems; we need to work with all > of them; thus, a "standard" means nothing to us > > 2) APR exports its own API with its own semantics; they don't have to match > a standard because it isn't part of that standard. > > Talking about standards is just increasing the bandwidth of this already > burdensome discussion. > > APR should choose some semantics and implement those. Done. Simple. > > If we depend on calloc() or whatever, then we need to be prepared to not see > it on some systems (dunno what, tho) because we don't compile against ANSI > or ISO or anything like that. That is what autoconf is all about. > > Cheers, > -g > > -- > Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/ >
