delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
From: | "Charles Sandmann" <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> |
Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Subject: | Re: negative sbrk(0) |
Date: | Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:11:19 |
Organization: | Aspen Technology, Inc. |
Lines: | 10 |
Message-ID: | <39cf9547.sandmann@clio.rice.edu> |
References: | <8qns3d$6g4$1 AT diana DOT bcn DOT ttd DOT net> |
NNTP-Posting-Host: | dcloan.hou.aspentech.com |
X-Trace: | selma.aspentech.com 969923609 15091 10.32.115.107 (25 Sep 2000 23:13:29 GMT) |
X-Complaints-To: | postmaster AT aspentech DOT com |
NNTP-Posting-Date: | 25 Sep 2000 23:13:29 GMT |
X-NewsEditor: | ED-1.5.8 |
To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
DJ-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Reply-To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
> Well, I have got sbrk(0) to return negative values in some cases, so the > function tells I have -1950Kb. Let me guess, you are running under Windows. Well, it sometimes returns memory blocks all over the virtual address space in no particular order. > Anybody has a solution? If you expect sbrk() return values to be anything other than a random address, you should set the unixy_sbrk flag in the crt0 flags.
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |