>>>> complaining to lack the "malloc_usable_size ()" system call.
>>> [That call] is completely bogus exposure of malloc internals.
>> It is?  I don't see what's wrong with it.  Any malloc implementation
>> could add it, if necessary by simply always returning the size
>> passed to malloc for the block in question.
> All?  I don't know.  I could think of a malloc implementation that
> doesn't free memory and doesn't keep track of memory either.

Hmm.  True.  Any general-purpose malloc implementation, then.

I still don't see what's so wrong with it.  It's a reasonable operation
for a malloc()-family client to want to perform; I can't see it as a
"bogus exposure of malloc internals".

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B