Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 80286 protected mode
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:24:07 +0000
Organization: Rocksolid Light
Message-ID: <d8cffb389b3fd055ee70e87da9a3403a@www.novabbs.org>
References: <2024Oct6.150415@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <memo.20241006163428.19028W@jgd.cix.co.uk> <2024Oct7.093314@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <7c8e5c75ce0f1e7c95ec3ae4bdbc9249@www.novabbs.org> <2024Oct8.092821@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <ve5ek3$2jamt$1@dont-email.me> <be506ccef76d682d13205c69c761a086@www.novabbs.org> <ve6oiq$2pag3$1@dont-email.me> <ve6tv7$2q6d5$1@dont-email.me> <86y12uy8ku.fsf@linuxsc.com> <jwv34kx5afd.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org> <3f2cb127c8d5dc2381fc80631a495e3e@www.novabbs.org> <8HBPO.471560$_o_3.464389@fx17.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2217344"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="o5SwNDfMfYu6Mv4wwLiW6e/jbA93UAdzFodw5PEa6eU";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$st5nN7icpaR7J5lh5TckVe/LOWmtkaCPQlK/N5NLNaRhfKu9CQ6J6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: cb29269328a20fe5719ed6a1c397e21f651bda71
Bytes: 2834
Lines: 32

On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:05:56 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) writes:
>>On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:26:29 +0000, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>
>>>> There is an advantage to the C approach of separating out some
>>>> facilities and supplying them only in the standard library.
>>>
>>> It goes a bit further: for a general purpose language, any existing
>>> functionality that cannot be written using the language is a sign of
>>> a weakness because it shows that despite being "general purpose" it
>>> fails to cover this specific "purpose".
>>
>>One of the key ways C got into the minds of programmers was that
>>one could write stuff like printf() in C and NOT needd to have it
>>entirely built-into the language.
>>
>>> In an ideal world, it would be better if we could define `malloc` and
>>> `memmove` efficiently in standard C, but at least they can be
>>> implemented in non-standard C.
>>
>>malloc() used to be std. K&R C--what dropped if from the std ??
>
> It still is part of the ISO C standard.

The paragraaph with 3 >'s indicates malloc() cannot be written
in std. C. It used to be written in std. K&R C. I am not asking
if it is still in the std libraries, I am asking what happened
to make it impossible to write malloc() in std. C ?!?

> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/functions/malloc.html
>
> POSIX adds some extensions (marked 'CX').