NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/lang/c-part1/7646

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 1.8 KB

Path: mail2news.demon.co.uk!genesis.demon.co.uk
From: Lawrence Kirby <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: memory allocation using malloc and free
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 96 21:33:24 GMT
Organization: none
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4gagll$[e-mail]> <danpop.824767980@rscernix> <4gbqd7$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <danpop.824952492@rscernix>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: genesis.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
X-Mail2News-Path: genesis.demon.co.uk

In article <danpop.824952492@rscernix> [e-mail] "Dan Pop" writes:

>For this particular discussion, the limit is 32K - 1.  And no more than
>one object of this size.  (Actually the phrasing is a little bit silly,
>because it doesn't even guarantee that every program containing such an
>object can be compiled and run, it requires that at least one program
>should be correctly translated):

The wording may not guarantee much but it is not silly. All real systems
have memory limit on a running program. If the wording guaranteed that
every program containing such an object (and in the absense of other
violations) can be compiled and run I can show all implementations to be
non-conforming. All I have to do is write a program that allocates x lots
of, say, 10K blocks and then a 32K-1 block. For any system with limited
memory there will be a value of x at which this fails. I may have to perform
a lot of trial and error to find x and the value may vary from run to run
but sooner or later I will hit a run that fails.

--
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | [e-mail]
Wilts, England | [e-mail]
-----------------------------------------