Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:46:14 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Demmer AT lstm DOT ruhr-uni-bochum DOT de
cc: Vik Heyndrickx <Vik DOT Heyndrickx AT rug DOT ac DOT be>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: malloc()
In-Reply-To: <8BD792772F6@brain1.lstm.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.971112144426.20379a-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Tom Demmer wrote:

> > - Blocks allocated at the same time, should be allocated 'close'
> > together, although that rule is mutually exclusive with the previous on
> > many occasions.
> 
> In DJGPP, what exactly does `close' mean? In terms of linear address 
> space, or in terms of physical address?

Linear, if at all.  You don't have any control on the physical addresses, 
and they can change on a whim of the DPMI host or the OS (such as 
Windows).

> Anyway, I didn't 
> notice any change when calling sbrk() with a negative argument, but maybe I'm 
> not searching enough.

AFAIK, our `sbrk' doesn't release memory when called with a negative 
argument.