Ingo Weinhold <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Definitely, even though it's stdlib.h, not malloc.h :-) > I guess we best remove them from stdlib.h and include malloc.h there. > No > point in having two sets of the same prototypes. Since malloc.h is non-standard, I would have opted for the other way around. > And why is malloc.h including unistd.h? I have no idea; maybe it's for backwards compatibility, as BeOS' malloc.h does that, too. Bye, Axel.