Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!comp.vuw.ac.nz!actrix!templar!jbickers
From: jbickers@templar.actrix.co.nz (John Bickers)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Life after free?
Message-ID: <6573.tnews@templar.actrix.co.nz>
Date: 5 Oct 90 18:59:56 GMT
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Organization: TAP, NZAmigaUG.
Lines: 22

Quoted from - kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley	):
> In article <1990Oct5.002416.3196@nntp-server.caltech.edu> manning@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Evan Marshall Manning) writes:
> >You're missing the point.  Of course you can do what you like with your
> >data.  But when you free() it you return it to the OS.  And anybody else
> >can end up with your data when they next malloc().
> 
> Which OS is that on?  At the risk of exhibiting "small world" syndrome,
> in UNIX, malloc and free work within the confines of the heap, which

    The Amiga's Exec, for example.

> terminates.  I'd hazard that other multi-tasking OS's like VMS behave
> similarly.

    I'd hazard that a multi-tasking OS where programs to not run in
    seperate virtual address spaces behaves similarly to Exec wrt how
    memory is allocated and deallocated.

> Kaleb Keithley                      Jet Propulsion Labs
--
*** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG.         jbickers@templar.actrix.co.nz ***
***          "All I can do now is wait for the noise." - Numan          ***