malloc() implementation

[Karsten Jung]

Hello together,

We have to make our own implementation of malloc() under Linux. Does
anybody can give me a hint where to start?

Our implementation should only work under Linux.

Thanks

Karsten

[santosh]

Haider wrote:

Flash Gordon wrote:

Haider wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Haider said:
>
>> Please go to the following link you will get a copy of K&R in pdf
>> format
> That's incitement to copyright violation.
>
> I've sent a complaint to gr**********@go ogle.com - hopefully they can
> explain to Haider about "intellectu al property". Perhaps others here would
> care to do the same.
>
it is for those peoples who don't have a copy and still don't want to
get one

You mean thieves? I'm not too fond of them myself. After all K&R put a
lot of work in to that book (including the development of the language
it describes) so they are entitled to receive payment for it.

they deserves and they will bcoz this book is such a good one that
anyone who have a look of it will purchase a copy.

That's not garunteed and is beside the point, i.e., that your link is
still an encouragement of copyright violation.

[Richard Heathfield]

santosh said:

Haider wrote:

>

But do read the book.

Hahahahahaha!

Your prompting Richard Heathfield to read K&R...!?!
:)

Well, yes, it's true that I don't need prompting.

K&R2 is always to hand here, and consulted regularly.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Keith Thompson]

Jordan Abel <ra****@random. yi.org> writes:

2006-06-02 <11************ *********@u72g2 000cwu.googlegr oups.com>,
santosh wrote:

as far as gr**********@go ogle.com is concern I got the link by
as the serch result of google itself.

Try giving this defense in court.

Google only provides a search service for material on the Internet.
Their legality is something that the user has to be aware of.

So it's legal for Google to link to it but not for a private citizen to
do so? (Not that I agree with copyright violation, but how's he supposed
to know that a search result he found isn't legitimate?)

I have no idea whether posting a link to an illegal copy of a
copyrighted work is illegal in whatever jurisdiction the poster
happens to live in. I suggest that speculating about whether posting
a link is legal or not is a waste of time. Anyone who feels the need
to discuss it can go to misc.int-property.

The point, I think, is that posting a link to an illegal copy of K&R
is *rude*. Kernighan and Ritchie deserve to be paid for their
considerable efforts. Don't encourage theft of their intellectual
property.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Jordan Abel]

2006-06-02 <ln************ @nuthaus.mib.or g>, Keith Thompson wrote:

Jordan Abel <ra****@random. yi.org> writes:

2006-06-02 <11************ *********@u72g2 000cwu.googlegr oups.com>,
santosh wrote:

as far as gr**********@go ogle.com is concern I got the link by
as the serch result of google itself.

Try giving this defense in court.

Google only provides a search service for material on the Internet.
Their legality is something that the user has to be aware of.

So it's legal for Google to link to it but not for a private citizen to
do so? (Not that I agree with copyright violation, but how's he supposed
to know that a search result he found isn't legitimate?)

I have no idea whether posting a link to an illegal copy of a
copyrighted work is illegal in whatever jurisdiction the poster
happens to live in. I suggest that speculating about whether posting
a link is legal or not is a waste of time. Anyone who feels the need
to discuss it can go to misc.int-property.

The point, I think, is that posting a link to an illegal copy of K&R
is *rude*. Kernighan and Ritchie deserve to be paid for their
considerable efforts. Don't encourage theft of their intellectual
property.

The other problem is that he _himself_ might not have known it wasn't
legal - there's lots of material online under open licenses (GPL, GFDL,
CC) or otherwise free to copy (like WG14's stuff). While it certainly
deserves pointing out (and the site that has it up should be reported to
the publisher - and if it weren't in russia, the hosting ISP), the
response seemed a bit rude also.

[Al Balmer]

On 2 Jun 2006 22:19:16 GMT, Jordan Abel <ra****@random. yi.org> wrote:

The other problem is that he _himself_ might not have known it wasn't
legal - there's lots of material online under open licenses (GPL, GFDL,
CC) or otherwise free to copy (like WG14's stuff).

Such material is always, in my experience, clearly designated as such.
OTOH, the appearance of a book image, complete with cover, but missing
the copyright page, is a pretty good clue that something's not kosher.

Since most publications are copyrighted by default, one must assume
they are not available without permission, in the absence of a notice
to the contrary.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ

[Ben Pfaff]

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g> writes:

The point, I think, is that posting a link to an illegal copy of K&R
is *rude*. Kernighan and Ritchie deserve to be paid for their
considerable efforts.
Interesting point. The copyright date in K&R2 is 1988. Given
the original 14-year span of copyright in the United States, the
copyright on K&R2 would have expired in 2002. One would think
that K&R made some money on it in those years.

Of course, these days, copyrights never expire in an author's
lifetime.
Don't encourage theft of their intellectual property.

Funny how the definition of "theft" expands as time goes on.
--
"Given that computing power increases exponentially with time,
algorithms with exponential or better O-notations
are actually linear with a large constant."
--Mike Lee

[Jordan Abel]

2006-06-02 <87************ @benpfaff.org>, Ben Pfaff wrote:

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g> writes:

The point, I think, is that posting a link to an illegal copy of K&R
is *rude*. Kernighan and Ritchie deserve to be paid for their
considerable efforts.
Interesting point. The copyright date in K&R2 is 1988. Given
the original 14-year span of copyright in the United States,

The original span was 28 years. Two 14-year periods. That would put its
expiration at 2016, if they bothered to renew it in 2002.
the copyright on K&R2 would have expired in 2002. One would think
that K&R made some money on it in those years.

Of course, these days, copyrights never expire in an author's
lifetime.

Don't encourage theft of their intellectual property.

Funny how the definition of "theft" expands as time goes on.

[W H G]

"Jordan Abel" <ra****@random. yi.org> wrote in message
news:slrne81va7 .1hph.ra****@ra ndom.yi.org...

2006-06-02 <87************ @benpfaff.org>, Ben Pfaff wrote:

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g> writes:

The point, I think, is that posting a link to an illegal copy of K&R
is *rude*. Kernighan and Ritchie deserve to be paid for their
considerable efforts.

Interesting point. The copyright date in K&R2 is 1988. Given
the original 14-year span of copyright in the United States,

The original span was 28 years. Two 14-year periods. That would put its
expiration at 2016, if they bothered to renew it in 2002.

------------> According to a handy Almanac, works created after
Jan 1, 1978 (obviously K&R!) are protected for seventy years
after the last joint author dies.
As I remember, until the 70's the copyright was for 28 yrs, renewable
once - but I do remember seeing something that many yrs ago it was
14 years.
W H G
--------------------------------------------------------

[Jordan Abel]

2006-06-03 <RC************ *******@newssvr 27.news.prodigy .net>, W H G wrote:

"Jordan Abel" <ra****@random. yi.org> wrote in message
news:slrne81va7 .1hph.ra****@ra ndom.yi.org...

2006-06-02 <87************ @benpfaff.org>, Ben Pfaff wrote:

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g> writes:

The point, I think, is that posting a link to an illegal copy of K&R
is *rude*. Kernighan and Ritchie deserve to be paid for their
considerable efforts.

Interesting point. The copyright date in K&R2 is 1988. Given
the original 14-year span of copyright in the United States,

The original span was 28 years. Two 14-year periods. That would put its
expiration at 2016, if they bothered to renew it in 2002.

------------> According to a handy Almanac, works created after
Jan 1, 1978 (obviously K&R!) are protected for seventy years
after the last joint author dies.
As I remember, until the 70's the copyright was for 28 yrs, renewable
once - but I do remember seeing something that many yrs ago it was
14 years.

Yes, but at that time it was also renewable [for a total of 28].

[pete]

Michael Mair wrote:

Peter Nilsson schrieb:

Karsten Jung wrote:

Hello together,

Who is 'together'?

Consider it a quirk of word-by-word translation; the OP
probably meant "Hello everybody"/"Hi all".

<snip>

The lack of a plural "you",
is a defficiency of the modern English language.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=y%27all&db=*

The single most famous feature of Southern United States dialects
is the pronoun y'all, sometimes heard in its variant you-all.

In addition to y'all, other forms for plural you include you-uns,
youse, and you guys or youse guys.
Youse is common in vernacular varieties in the Northeast,
particularly in large cities such as New York and Boston,
and is also common in Irish English.
You-uns is found in western Pennsylvania and in the
Appalachians and probably reflects the Scotch-Irish roots of many
European settlers to these regions.

--
pete