Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #63713

Re: recalloc

Show all headers | View raw

jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:

> Le 21/06/2015 10:49, Ben Bacarisse a écrit :
>> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
>>
>>> Le 21/06/2015 08:51, Richard Heathfield a écrit :
>>>> The name recalloc is in user namespace. Since you're the implementation,
>>>> shouldn't you be calling it _recalloc?
>>>
>>> Yes, I will enclose the definition
>>>
>>> #ifndef ANSIC
>>> #endif
>>
>> Why?  ANSIC is also not a name reserved to the implementation so I'm
>> guessing it is something I have to "not defined" to get your new
>> function.  Why would I ever define it except for my own purposes?
>>
>> But if you've changed the name to a reserved one, is there any need to
>> hide the definition at all?
>>
>
> ANSIC is a symbol that you define by calling the compiler with the
> ANSIC flag. That will limit the compiler to the strict C99
> standard. No extensions are allowed, no overloaded operators, no
> windows, no nothing.

If you just called the function _recalloc, would you need to hide it?  I
was going to as if you really have customers who want no extraneous
identifiers (even reserved ones) defined during a compilation but
obviously, since you define at least one (ANSIC itself), you can't
have.  If they have live with ANSIC being defined, how could they mind
about _realloc?

> It is designed for people that want strict compliance with the
> standard code.

That's not possible because ANSIC is not a reserved identifier.

-- 
Ben.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

recalloc jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-21 08:32 +0200
  Re: recalloc luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 23:43 -0700
    Re: recalloc Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-21 10:00 +0100
      Re: recalloc luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-06-21 09:57 -0700
  Re: recalloc Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-21 07:51 +0100
    Re: recalloc jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-21 09:22 +0200
      Re: recalloc Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-21 09:49 +0100
        Re: recalloc jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-21 12:00 +0200
          Re: recalloc Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-21 12:46 +0100
          Re: recalloc James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:25 -0400
            Re: recalloc David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 08:27 -0700
          Re: recalloc James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:30 -0400
          Re: recalloc Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 13:00 -0700
    Re: recalloc Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 12:44 -0700
  Re: recalloc jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-21 10:30 +0200
  Re: recalloc Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-21 10:14 -0700
    Re: recalloc Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-21 19:28 +0100
    Re: recalloc Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-21 20:10 +0100
      Re: recalloc Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0700
      Re: recalloc Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-21 13:41 -0700
        Re: recalloc Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 00:02 +0100
    Re: recalloc jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-21 22:59 +0200
      Re: recalloc Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-21 14:18 -0700
  Re: recalloc Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 04:50 -0700
    Re: recalloc jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-07-11 16:18 +0200
      Re: recalloc Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 13:51 -0700
        Re: recalloc jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-07-12 15:51 +0200
          Re: recalloc Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 03:57 -0700

csiph-web