Article View: comp.std.c
Article #441Re: Shrinking with realloc
From: Walter Bright
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1989 18:53
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1989 18:53
23 lines
1548 bytes
1548 bytes
In article <26362@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> signup@cs.ucla.edu writes: <I guess what I'd want is a no_move_realloc that returns <NULL if it can't do the realloc in place, leaving the area allocated. <It seems easy to provide; was it ever considered? Easy to provide is not the only criterion. Adding a function to the library involves: 1. Usefulness of the function. 2. Difficulty of implementation. 3. Impact on size and weight of manual. 4. Desirability for backwards compatibility. 5. Impact on size of provided libraries. Lots of functions are easy to implement, but don't get implemented because the utility is small. There are an infinite number of these, and stuffing pages in the manual for all of them makes it hard to find the useful ones. The C library is already very large. Adding functions shouldn't be done unless there is a demonstrable significant need. If it's easy to implement, why don't you simply write it and put it in your personal version of the library? Most vendors supply library source for this purpose.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<2090@dataio.Data-IO.COM>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pilchuck!dataio!brightReferences:
<26328@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <1431@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> <26362@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pilchuck!dataio!bright From: bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: Shrinking with realloc Message-ID: <2090@dataio.Data-IO.COM> Date: 11 Aug 89 18:53:33 GMT References: <26328@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <1431@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> <26362@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> Reply-To: bright@dataio.Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) Organization: Data I/O Corporation; Redmond, WA Lines: 23