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 wha