Path: utzoo!attcan!ncrcan!scocan!seanf
From: seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: void*
Message-ID: <1990Aug16.043424.8136@sco.COM>
Date: 16 Aug 90 08:34:24 GMT
References: <13530@smoke.BRL.MIL> <43.UUL1.3#5077@aussie.UUCP> <13548@smoke.BRL.MIL> <17416@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Reply-To: seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan)
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Lines: 24

In article <17416@haddock.ima.isc.com> karl@kelp.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
>In article <13548@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>>Indeed, I wouldn't include the relevant
>>header in most implementations of standard library functions, since it
>>usually isn't either necessary or useful to do so.

And, of course, don't forget that the implementor can use whatever
non-standard extensions in the library source that she or he wants to.  Such
as using gcc's extension that has sizeof(*(void *)) == 1.  That would
eliminate the need for casts for things like malloc, memcpy, etc.

Karl *did* make a good point, that I deleted, about using the "standard"
include files to make sure the prototypes agree.  But remember that the
libraries might not be writtin in C at all, and the prototypes either
directly copies from the standard (with, hopefully, the parameter names
removed 8-)), or generated by some utility.

Just my $0.02 (Canadian).

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "let's face it, finding yourself dead is one 
seanf@sco.COM    |   of life's more difficult moments."
uunet!sco!seanf  |   -- Mark Leeper, reviewing _Ghost_
(408) 458-1422   | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.