Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!gatech!prism!sloth!carter
From: carter@sloth.gatech.edu (Carter Bullard)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Overloading functions
Message-ID: <853@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 19 Jun 89 16:40:40 GMT
References: <9368@csli.Stanford.EDU> <9996@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@prism.gatech.EDU
Reply-To: carter%sloth@gatech.edu (Carter Bullard)
Distribution: na
Organization: ICS Department, Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 22

In article <9996@polya.Stanford.EDU> aozer@NeXT.com (Ali Ozer) writes:
>In article <9368@csli.Stanford.EDU> Daniel M. Rosenberg writes:
>>Bash makes its own versions of malloc(), free(), and realloc(). Ld
>>does not appreciate them competing with the ones in libc. Is there
>>any simple way to tell the compiler or loader to just overload
>>redefined functions?
>

>Please note that the memory allocation routines in the NeXT libraries are 
>highly optimized and do a good job. Unless there's some other reason to 
>override them, it might not be a bad idea to just use the NeXT versions.
>(I'm not familiar with the bash code; it might turn out that the 
>bash versions of malloc etc do other stuff...)

Yes, there is, in many cases of porting code to the NeXT, a need to
overload these functions.  I have gotten in the habit of just renaming
the malloc redefinitions to something like Malloc. 

Carter Bullard
School of Information & Computer Science, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
uucp:	...!{decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,rutgers}!gatech!carter
Internet:	carter@gatech.edu