From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10304260607.AA14636@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: 2.04 status page / 2.04 alpha 1 release schedule
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 01:07:42 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: <3EA9E9F8.4A8A831B@yahoo.com> from "CBFalconer" at Apr 25, 2003 10:07:52 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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

> What is 'unixy sbrk()'?  Should I worry about it for nmalloc?

Unixy sbrk acts like unix - you end up with a contiguous memory 
region always.  (No holes, no out of order addresses being 
returned).  It's the easy one to deal with, so you don't have to 
worry about it.

The default sbrk has some surprising behavior at times that I'm
much more worried about.  You can get address sequences like:

00010000
fffd0000
00020000
00030000
fffe0000
(etc)

Depending on how windows is feeling that particular day.  I believe
you confirmed that nmalloc has no problems with randomly returned
addresses which may not be in increasing order.