Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 21:07:13 -0400
Message-Id: <200107030107.VAA05731@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT envy DOT delorie DOT com using -f
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <Pine.SOL.4.33.0107030132070.19125-100000@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
	(message from Daniel Barker on Tue, 3 Jul 2001 01:34:46 +0100 (BST))
Subject: Re: malloc() problem, DJDEV 203
References: <Pine DOT SOL DOT 4 DOT 33 DOT 0107022250120 DOT 27631-100000 AT holyrood DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk>
 <200107022219 DOT SAA04299 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <Pine DOT SOL DOT 4 DOT 33 DOT 0107030043180 DOT 14632-100000 AT holyrood DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk>
 <200107022351 DOT TAA05124 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <Pine DOT SOL DOT 4 DOT 33 DOT 0107030132070 DOT 19125-100000 AT holyrood DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


> There seems to be another problem as well. Some significantly smaller
> requests that are still large enough that they must fail, e.g.,
> 4294378000U bytes, also cause malloc() to return non-NULL.

I wouldn't trust any request bigger than 2G, because you never know
when the OS is going to treat the number like a signed number.  sbrk()
is the interface to the OS; has anyone tried testing that
independently of malloc?  And has anyone tried testing GNU malloc to
see if it has the same problems?