Message-ID: <3EAA819F.628880E5@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 08:54:55 -0400
From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
Organization: Ched Research
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: 2.04 status page / 2.04 alpha 1 release schedule
References: <10304260607 DOT AA14636 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Charles Sandmann wrote:
> 
> > 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.

IIRC I said I believed it didn't affect anything.  I have never
seen that effect.  On rereading my code I still see no problem. 
sbrk is only called in one place, in routine extendsbrk().

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com) (cbfalconer AT worldnet DOT att DOT net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!