Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!gatech!udel!haven!mimsy!mojo!russotto
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Novice question about malloc() in Think C
Message-ID: <1991Feb26.020133.3926@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 26 Feb 91 02:01:33 GMT
References: <1991Feb25.103404.3662@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <12591@helios.TAMU.EDU> <5813@husc6.harvard.edu>
Sender: news@eng.umd.edu (C-News)
Distribution: usa
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Lines: 24

In article <5813@husc6.harvard.edu> siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) writes:
>
>	This is not correct. The original poster's problem is that he needs 
>to include the appropriate header file which contains the prototype for
>malloc, namely <stdlib.h>. The problem is in code which assumes that pointers
>and ints are the same size, and which therefore doesn't prototype a return-type
>for malloc. The result is the returned pointer is invalid. Including <stdlib.h>
>or adding a "extern char *malloc()" declaration will suffice to fix this
>problem.
>
>R.
> Rich Siegel	Symantec Languages Group  Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu
>
>"I was just trying to be subtle. That's my job, isn't it?"


Wouldn't 
extern char *malloc(long);
be better-- I have had at least as many problems messing up the parameter
type-- if the return type is wrong at least you often get an error.
(Of course, including the headers is the best way)
--
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
     .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.