Re: egcs-19990602/libiberty size_t etc fixes

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

  In message <199906091029.MAA24706@mail.macqel.be>you write:
  > That would perhaps be better, but none of the libiberty files does it that 
  > way.
I would consider that a bug.

  > They basically all use the simple method that I used, with small variations
  > from file to file :
  > 
  > void * instead of char *,
  > PTR instead of char *,
  > parameter list enclosed in PARAMS()
Right.  And these schemes are prone to problems when the system provides
a declaration -- which is precisely what NEED_DECLARATION_MALLOC avoids.

  > So, for the moment, I'd prefer to stick with my proposed change.
I'd much prefer to start fixing these problems rather than introduce more
instances of an old problem.

In fact, I'd like to see all the declarations of malloc be wrapped in a
NEED_DECLARATION_MALLOC as part of this change.  It should be trivial and
would remove this set of problems from libiberty once and for all.
jeff