From: rpolzer AT web DOT de (Rudolf Polzer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Advance warning of failure of realloc()
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010124100451 DOT 25819A AT is> <3A6E9FDD DOT C51D05E5 AT acm DOT org> <3405-Wed24Jan2001182735+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <20010124111235 DOT B16796 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org>
X-newsgroup: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
X-realname: JT Williams
X-Mailer: GehtDichNenScheissdreckAn 1.0
Message-ID: <slrn96u8eb.325.rpolzer@rebounce.rpolzer-lx>
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.2 (Linux)
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 19:41:15 +0100
Lines: 14
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.6.54.93
X-Trace: 980362420 news.freenet.de 3301 213.6.54.93
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT freenet DOT de
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

JT Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org> schrieb folgenden Unsinn:
> -: As for how this could be done differently--`realloc' could check if
> -: there's enough free memory immediately following the old block, for
> 
> *Must* the memory block be contiguous?

yes, it has to be. C structures and C arrays refer to contiguous blocks of
memory, and cannot be fragmented therefore. But this does only hold for
the virtual address space; physical RAM can be fragmented by address
remapping, but only in 4k-blocks.

-- 
Nuper erat medicus, nunc est vispillo, Diaulus:
Quod vispillo facit, fecerat et medicus.