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

[CBFalconer]

pete wrote:

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

Dost thou not realize that 'you' is plural? :-)

--
Some informative links:
news:news.annou nce.newusers
http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

[Richard Heathfield]

Jordan Abel said:

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

------------> 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].

It is widely known that "The C Programming Language" expires in January
2038. :-)

--
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)

[Richard Tobin]

In article <44***********@ mindspring.com> ,
pete <pf*****@mindsp ring.com> wrote:

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

No, it's the lack of a singular.

-- Richard

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <87************ @benpfaff.org> bl*@cs.stanford .edu writes:

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.

Interesting point. The US entered the Berne convention on 1 March 1989.
Given that for the Berne convention the actual date of publication is
the starting point, I wonder whether K&R2 already did fall under it.
(At that time the Berne convention stated that a copyright is retained
until 50 years after the death of the original authors. Since that
time that has been increased to 70 years.) So the remaining questions are
1. Was it published before 1 March 1989?
2. Did the United States ratify the Berne convention only for works
published after 1 March 1989 (I think not)?
(Note: for the Berne convention the copyright notice is irrelevant, and
can be omitted. However, for works published in the US, it remains
relevant in order to be able to be awarded damages, according to US law.)
One would think
that K&R made some money on it in those years.

So you think that if somebody has made some money with his work that at
some point it is enough?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, [phone]
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

[Ben Pfaff]

"Dik T. Winter" <Di********@cwi .nl> writes:

In article <87************ @benpfaff.org> bl*@cs.stanford .edu writes:

> One would think that K&R made some money on it in those
> years.

So you think that if somebody has made some money with his work that at
some point it is enough?

In the United States, the Constitution requires that copyright be
for a limited time, so this is axiomatically true here.
--
Ben Pfaff
email: bl*@cs.stanford .edu
web: http://benpfaff.org

[Jordan Abel]

2006-06-03 <J0********@cwi .nl>,
Dik T. Winter wrote:

So you think that if somebody has made some money with his work that at
some point it is enough?

That's the constitutional basis for copyright, yeah. At what point do
longer copyright terms gain less in incentive to produce more works than
they cost in discouragement of production of derived works?

[Dave]

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 16:25:26 -0400, CBFalconer wrote:

pete wrote:

... snip ...

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

Dost thou not realize that 'you' is plural? :-)

Actually, the plural form is "youse." ;-)

See http://www.bartleby.com/61/91/Y0029150.html
~Dave~

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <sl************ ********@random .yi.org> ra*******@gmail .com writes:

2006-06-03 <J0********@cwi .nl>,
Dik T. Winter wrote:

So you think that if somebody has made some money with his work that at
some point it is enough?

That's the constitutional basis for copyright, yeah. At what point do
longer copyright terms gain less in incentive to produce more works than
they cost in discouragement of production of derived works?

In the Berne convention that is not the basis for copyright. And even
after the copyright has expired it may be possible in many countries that
it is not allowed to produce a derived work (although reproduction of the
original work is now free), even not by the original copyright holder if
that is not the original creator. This is known in German as "Urheberrec ht",
and applies particularly to works of science and art. But what *are*
derived works of things that fall under "copyright" ? A pastiche of a
well known work is certainly a derived work and also permitted under the
copyright law. There are quite a few of such available, derived from the
Harry Potter books.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, [phone]
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

[Richard Bos]

Ben Pfaff <bl*@cs.stanfor d.edu> wrote:

"Dik T. Winter" <Di********@cwi .nl> writes:

In article <87************ @benpfaff.org> bl*@cs.stanford .edu writes:

> One would think that K&R made some money on it in those
> years.

So you think that if somebody has made some money with his work that at
some point it is enough?

In the United States, the Constitution requires that copyright be
for a limited time, so this is axiomatically true here.

In the United States, Dizney 0wnz0rs teh C0nstitooti0n.

Richard

[Richard Bos]

Dave <da**@comteck.c om> wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 16:25:26 -0400, CBFalconer wrote:

pete wrote:

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

Dost thou not realize that 'you' is plural? :-)

Actually, the plural form is "youse." ;-)

See http://www.bartleby.com/61/91/Y0029150.html

Pah. I don't care what a colonial dictionary says, Chuck is correct. Not
that having two identical pronouns is unique to English; Dutch has "zij"
and "zij", and German "sie" and "Sie".

Richard