Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 20:22:05 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <3942-Fri17May2002202204+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <3CE517CD.AD3D0617@yahoo.com> (message from CBFalconer on Fri, 17
	May 2002 10:46:37 -0400)
Subject: Re: emacs under w2k and malloc effects
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1020516075834 DOT 13145D-100000 AT is> <3CE3990C DOT 308C92EC AT yahoo DOT com> <1225-Thu16May2002182200+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <3CE3FF64 DOT E0F0D953 AT yahoo DOT com> <4331-Fri17May2002115908+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <3CE517CD DOT AD3D0617 AT yahoo DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 10:46:37 -0400
> From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
> 
> However if something else effectively calls sbrk with a negative
> value, nmalloc may later think it has a new noncontiguous block,
> and may then very well allocate the same space twice!.  This would
> NOT be good.

I don't think this is a real issue: any program that calls sbrk
behind malloc's back should know what it's doing.  In general, such
programs don't call malloc at all.

A similar situation exists if a program calls both buffered stdio
functions like fread, and printf and unbuffered functions like read
and write.  We don't bother to protect the FILE object against
unbuffered atrocities.

So I don't think you should worry about this.