X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
Message-ID:	<3C6CF755.CC35209E@yahoo.com>
From:	CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
Organization:	Ched Research
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Malloc/free DJGPP code
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1020214175634 DOT 1382J-100000 AT is> <3C6C735D DOT A6D16719 AT yahoo DOT com> <1225-Fri15Feb2002084500+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <3C6CC93C DOT 6F9E05E6 AT yahoo DOT com> <2947-Fri15Feb2002112947+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Lines:	40
Date:	Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:58:27 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host:	12.90.170.75
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT worldnet DOT att DOT net
X-Trace:	bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1013774307 12.90.170.75 (Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:58:27 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:58:27 GMT
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
> > Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> > Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 08:40:10 GMT
> >
> > I suspect the first malloc call is made before the global arena is
> > setup.
> 
> No, that's not true, but it did give me a clue of what's happening:
> the conio functions need initialization.  That initialization runs
> from a static constructor, which is called just before `main'.  But
> malloc is called before that, from the startup code, so you end up
> invoking cprintf without it being properly initialized.

But that doesn't explain why the static 'firstime' control failed?
That should have prevented the initial cprintf calls, and in my
experiment there were no others.

> 
> My bad, I should have thought about this before.
> 
> So DJ's advice, to use sprintf and then write the buffer with a call
> to the function `write', is better.
> 
> > This is annoying.  If other things aren't set up, I am very leery
> > of calling anything whatsoever at this point.  Who knows what is
> > getting written on.
> 
> Don't give up ;-)

The file system to receive 'write' has no more reason to be
initialized at that point than does cprintf, does it?

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com) (cbfalconer AT XXXXworldnet DOT att DOT net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   (Remove "XXXX" from reply address. yahoo works unmodified)
   mailto:uce AT ftc DOT gov  (for spambots to harvest)

- Raw text -