Re: TN5250 & X5250 issues

James Rich wrote:

>
> "If the malloc function is compatible with the GNU C library malloc (i.e.,
> `malloc (0)' returns a valid pointer), define HAVE_MALLOC to 1. Otherwise
> define HAVE_MALLOC to 0, ask for an AC_LIBOBJ replacement for `malloc',
> and define malloc to rpl_malloc so that the native malloc is not used in
> the main project."

Maybe the malloc test in autoconf is busted on Solaris.

     [21:31:15 jax@mitra:/usr/local/work/SoftWoehr/test]$ cat have_malloc.c
     #include <stdio.h>
     int main()

                          {
                            printf ("The return from malloc(0) is %x.\n", 
malloc(0));
                            return 0;
                          }
     [21:31:20 jax@mitra:/usr/local/work/SoftWoehr/test]$ cat have_malloc.c
     #include <stdio.h>
     int main()

                          {
                            printf ("The return from malloc(0) is %x.", 
malloc(0));
                            return 0;
                          }
     [21:31:23 jax@mitra:/usr/local/work/SoftWoehr/test]$ gcc -o have_malloc 
have_malloc.c
     [21:31:31 jax@mitra:/usr/local/work/SoftWoehr/test]$ ./have_malloc
     The return from malloc(0) is 20968.

--
Jack J. Woehr                 # Ordinator consistetvr,
PO Box 51, Golden, CO 80402   # redintegrandvs tandem
http://www.well.com/~jax      # tangenda qvodvis clavis.