From:	George Foot <mert0407 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: sbrk oddity
Date:	11 Nov 1997 05:30:57 GMT
Organization:	Oxford University, England
Lines:	26
Message-ID:	<648qih$81r$1@news.ox.ac.uk>
References:	<647ne3$ecb$1 AT news DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk> <34674c48 DOT sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	sable.ox.ac.uk
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 18: 2:48 in comp.os.msdos.djgpp Charles Sandmann
<sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> wrote:

: Do NOT do this unless you have set the flag for unixy sbrk() in crt0.h!
: There may be huge (potentially 4Gb) holes in your address space using
: the non-move sbrk() - which makes writing core files difficult.
[snip]
: anyway.  To find out what memory is really in use, you have to look
: in the memory zone list in crt0.

Thanks very much for the advice.  Does the latter point here mean that
even using the default non-move sbrk I can just save the areas shown
in the zone list, or is it just not practical to do this sort of thing
with this sbrk system?  I've heard a lot of people abusing things like
__djgpp_nearptr_enable() in ways which would break, AFAIK, under the
unixy sbrk; it would be nice to have this working under either sbrk.
Nothing to lose sleep over, though; it's their code that's wrong.

I do seem to have completely missed the point of sbrk though...

Thanks again.

-- 
Regards,

george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk

- Raw text -