On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 08:47:23PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 08:17:13PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > *NO* UNIX ever needed malloc.h and had even a minimal relevence.
> 
> Actually it was often used to get a different implementation of malloc (etc).
> (Although it wasn't necessarily a 'better' one due to improvements in
> the OS supplied version...)

Oh, I didn't say that including a header might not choose a different one,
e.g. dmalloc is a good example. But "malloc.h" per se comes IIRC from
the DOS world or other broken environments. And given that ISO C90
says stdlib.h provides malloc, I wouldn't care at all about other
systems.

Joerg