From: flupke <schawat AT club-internet DOT fr>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: c,allegro,coolness....
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:14:19 +0200
Organization: Club-Internet (France)
Lines: 5
Message-ID: <37DA71CB.70834748@club-internet.fr>
References: <37D9D699 DOT 8BFA4EF6 AT gtcom DOT net> <37DA07F7 DOT 182B297C AT hmc DOT edu> <37DA1143 DOT C8E47EFF AT gtcom DOT net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: toulon-1-77.club-internet.fr
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: front7.grolier.fr 937063217 27625 195.36.182.77 (11 Sep 1999 15:20:17 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Sep 1999 15:20:17 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I)
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Creating sub-bitmaps is certainly not consuming a lot of memory, just the size of
the struct. You can certainly create a billion of sub-bitmap before your program
dies, but i agree with Nate and Davin that this is very bad coding style.