Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!greg From: greg@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: De-Allocating Memory? Message-ID: <29676@ut-emx.UUCP> Date: 9 May 90 08:05:39 GMT References: <12750@wpi.wpi.edu> Sender: news@ut-emx.UUCP Reply-To: greg@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas Lines: 23 In article mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) writes: >Lattice's memory routines allocate a growing pool. Doing a free() >doesn't release the memory back to the OS, but puts it back in the >pool for reuse by the Lattice memory manager. Sin! Sin! Sin! PLEASE don't tell me Manx does the same thing!! Memory is too much of a commodity in a multitasking machine to hog it like that! What happens when an otherwise tame, small program wants to allocate a large amount of memory just once, use it, and return it so OTHER PROGRAMS CAN HAVE IT?!?!? I think I just decided which compiler to invest in, unless the people over at Manx are just as guilty... >I'm gonna lasso you with my rubberband lazer, Mike Meyer >Pull you closer to me, and look right to the moon. mwm@relay.pa.dec.com >Ride side by side when worlds collide, decwrl!mwm >And slip into the Martian tide. //// Disclaimer: THe opinions expressed above are not my own, but //// the property of some higher-up power, to which I am only a tool. //// \\\\//// Greg Harp greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu \\XX//