Re: What is wrong with malloc?

Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> writes:

On 1/8/25 3:20 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> writes:
[...]

C89 and C90 are better for 8-bit systems then C99 and newer. Not that
you can't do 8-bit on C99 but it's just not designed as well for it
since C99 assumes you've moved on to at least 16-bit.

There were no changes in the sizes of the integer types from C89/C90
to
C99, aside from the addition of long long.  (And an implementation with
8-bit int would be non-conforming under any edition of the standard,
though it might be useful.)

>

Perhaps some C89/C90 implementations are better for 8-bit systems than
some C90 implementations?

>
Yes, this is what I was saying.

I'm curious about the details.  What C89/C90 implementation are
you using, and what features make it more suitable for 8-bit
systems?  (Any useful extensions could be applied to a C99 or
later implementation.  It sounds like the implementer just hasn't
done that.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */