Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:16810 comp.sys.pyramid:606
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!oliveb!pyramid!csg
From: csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.sys.pyramid
Subject: Re: Where are you malloc? I loc you still.  Where are you?
Keywords: malloc, include files, declaration
Message-ID: <86743@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Date: 6 Oct 89 16:51:26 GMT
References: <352@massey.ac.nz>
Followup-To: comp.sys.pyramid
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 16

In article <352@massey.ac.nz> ARaman@massey.ac.nz (A.V. Raman) writes:
>Why do I have to explicitly declare malloc, calloc and other such things in
>my C source in a ucb universe, whereas I can just include malloc.h in the att
>universe and have it done automatically.

Pyramid OSx does not declare malloc(3) in a header file in the ucb universe
because Berkeley 4.3BSD doesn't. It *is* declared in a header file in the att
universe, because AT&T SVR3 does do that. In general, it is Pyramid's policy
to not add new features to the universes that cause portability problems, even
if they would be useful or sensible.

Now, if you want to know why *Berkeley* didn't put a declaration of malloc(3)
in some convenient header file, I haven't any idea. But I agree it would be a
good idea.

<csg>