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 :-)