On Sun, 23 Sep 2001, Christos Zoulas wrote:

> On Sep 23, 11:36pm, abs@netbsd.org (David Brownlee) wrote:
>
> | 	Apologies if this has already been covered and I've missed it...
> |
> | 	Given all the strings are malloc()ed would it make sense to
> | 	have an explicit utmpx_free() so fields could be added at a
> | 	later point without inducing memory leaks in older dynamically
> | 	linked programs?
>
> You just need to allocate a big chunk and thread pointers into it. It
> is a lot faster than doing many malloc and free's.

	That makes a lot of sense - presumably the chunk starts with
	the utmpx struct and all its pointers? :)

-- 
		David/absolute		-- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --