Um, probably not. I didn't quite understand that, sorry.
This is often the case, but yet it does not justify f*cking up libc for the cases where it is not. libc should not bring up some requester when malloc() fails.
The correct way to handle this would be to have a link-library that replaces malloc/realloc/free. This link library would then have the requester code. When building a program that can be expected to crash if malloc fails just add the linklib to the link cmdline in makefile (say -lsafemalloc). Clean, easy, no need to mess up the libc with silly requesters.
Anyone with even decent emount of design experience can see this.
Completely agree with Piru here. I even think the -lsafemalloc is not needed (overkill). It's up to the host application (and programmer) who calls malloc to see whether it worked or not. There shouldn't be any requesters or something like that coming from malloc. It is indeed a bad design idea.
We should not care what apache does in unix, instead if someone ports it over to Amiga, he should add the proper checks to malloc.
Btw, this is just my opinion, don't get me wrong. I'm very grateful with what Bernd is doing on 68k, and he should definitely keep it up! I also hope this ixemul thing is resolved soon.
