Stewart Stremler wrote:
>..
>>> More significantly, I failed to see where the 'trick' was that I want
>>> to emulate.
>> It looks to me that it's simply hiding the malloc and free with defined
>> replacements (does that have any connection with weak references?)
>>
>> memwatch.h:578
>> #define malloc(n) mwMalloc(n,__FILE__,__LINE__)
>
> But mwMalloc needs to eventually invoke malloc, yes?
OK, I don't understand how the name bindings get resolved but, somehow
the magic works (, it seems).
in memwatch.h:
..
** - mwMalloc() debugging allocator
** - mwMalloc_() always resolves to a clean call of malloc()
..
void* mwMalloc( size_t, const char*, int );
void* mwMalloc_( size_t );
..
#define malloc(n) mwMalloc(n,__FILE__,__LINE__)
..
#define mwMalloc(n,f,l) malloc(n)
..
#define mwMalloc_(n) malloc(n)
..
and then, there are real live implementations (that call malloc)
in memwatch.c:
void* mwMalloc( size_t size, const char* file, int line) {
..
void* mwMalloc_( size_t size ) {
I wouldn't mind getting an explanation from somebody who knows, but..
..it sure makes my head hurt!
Regards,
..jim
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
