Xref: news2.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:3300
From: agserm AT netwizards DOT net (Ansel Sermersheim)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: V2 vs. 1.12m5
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 18:58:05 GMT
Organization: West Coast Online's News Server - Not responsible for content
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4m5nlb$cib@news.wco.com>
References: <31854B53 DOT 1C71 AT goliat DOT eik DOT bme DOT hu> <31850f74 DOT sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Reply-To: agserm AT netwizards DOT net
NNTP-Posting-Host: dial47.netwizards.net
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> wrote:

>> When can I expect a corrected CWSDPMI, with which I can allocate and 
>> deallocate as many times I like?

>I am currently too busy to cut another release, but ftp.neosoft.com:
>pub/users/s/sandmann/csdpmi1heapfix.zip contains a fix for cwsdpmi.
>You can also completely avoid the problem by including crt0.h in your
>main module and setting the unixy sbrk flag.  Since there are multiple
>workarounds, getting the fix out is relatively low priority for me at
>this point.

I also have to use the unix sbrk algorithm (until I write my own heap
functions).  It's not a problem, it seems to work fine.  However, I'd like
t know what tradeoff I'm making.  Is malloc() slower under the unix sbrk?
Does it take more memory for housekeeping? There's gotta be a catch!
---
This message may not be transmitted over any network owned directly or
indirectly by Microsoft without a $5000 royalty.  Transmission of this message
on such a network implies acceptance of these terms.  Subsequent messages
are to be individually licensed.