Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!cbmvax!valentin
From: valentin@cbmvax.commodore.com (Valentin Pepelea)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: 32 bits CHIP ram
Keywords: Allocating memory on 4 or 8 byte boundaries
Message-ID: <14818@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 2 Oct 90 19:59:47 GMT
References: <447392@neabbs.UUCP> <1264@tardis.Tymnet.COM>
Reply-To: valentin@cbmvax.commodore.com (Valentin Pepelea)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 22

In article <1264@tardis.Tymnet.COM> jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) writes:
>
>For dynamically allocated memory objects, there is no need to change anything.
>The AllocMem() function is documented as returning a pointer to memory that
>is allocated on an 8-byte boundary.  So, we have better than 32-bit alignment
>already; we have 64-bit alignment.

Correction, the AllocMem() function is not documented to allocate memory on an
8-byte boundary, although it does happen to do just that. The documentation
that implies that memory is allocated on 8-byte boundaries is the one
explaining how Allocate() and Deallocate() work, along with the MemHeader and
MemChunk structures.

Writing code that is dependent on an allocation granularity of 8 bytes, rather
than something larger like 256 bytes, is considered bad style.

Valentin
-- 
The Goddess of democracy? "The tyrants    Name:    Valentin Pepelea
may destroy a statue,  but they cannot    Phone:   (215) 431-9327
kill a god."                              UseNet:  cbmvax!valentin@uunet.uu.net
             - Ancient Chinese Proverb    Claimer: I not Commodore spokesman be