Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 11:16:40 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Luke Bishop <lbishop AT calvin DOT stemnet DOT nf DOT ca>
cc: "djgpp AT delorie DOT com" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>,
        "'Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)'" <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
Subject: RE: Allegro And Alternate Memory Handling
In-Reply-To: <01BD4BB1.447D5140@n072h048.thezone.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980311111619.7344L-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Luke Bishop wrote:

> 	I hope some solution can be made, because I have actually
> 	already tried three times to rewrite Allegro with no success
> 	(okay there was progress, but not nearly enough...). 

IMHO, there could be no solution that disallows calling `malloc' and
friends.  Many C library functions call `malloc' internally.  Heck,
even the startup code calls `malloc'.  It seems impractical to require
that a program avoids using all those libc functions.  If you insist
on your design, you will probably need to rewrite not only Allegro, but
large parts of libc as well.