Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!mordor!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!braner From: braner@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (braner) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: new standard for malloc() suggested Message-ID: <1790@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> Date: Fri, 12-Dec-86 00:33:47 EST Article-I.D.: batcompu.1790 Posted: Fri Dec 12 00:33:47 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 15-Dec-86 06:54:55 EST References: <311@bms-at.UUCP> Reply-To: braner@batcomputer.UUCP (braner) Organization: Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY Lines: 16 Keywords: why not? Summary: can we have a bigmalloc()? [] Aha, now that we've been reminded of the low ceiling for malloc()'s argument (an unsigned int, which on some systems is only 16 bits): I've been bitten by this, and would like to see a bigmalloc() with a LONG argument! (Can't change malloc itself, that'll break current programs...). - Moshe Braner PS: to iterate an earlier suggestion: let's REQUIRE that char, short, int and long have a MINIMUM size of 8, 8, 16 and 32 bits respectively, and perhaps that 'long' be large enough to hold a pointer to any type (or at least the difference between two pointers whenever that difference is meaningful) (only need 16 bits for THAT on an Intel chip :-)