On Sep 20, 2006, at 7:36 PM, Chuck Silvers wrote:

> that is another valid issue.  I'd say we should define FREE() as free 
> ()
> always (or just replace FREE() with free() and eliminate FREE()).

...and we should just do the same with MALLOC().  It's an MP locking  
nightmare to have that macro expand to what it actually does.   
Exposing the guts of the implementation is considered harmful :-)


>
> -Chuck

-- thorpej