Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!batcomputer!munnari.oz.au!metro!cluster!necisa!boyd
From: boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au (Boyd Roberts)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: sbrk(2) question
Message-ID: <2048@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au>
Date: 19 Mar 91 00:39:03 GMT
References: <1991Mar8.180132.12025@Think.COM> <4296@skye.ed.ac.uk> <6582@auspex.auspex.com> <4312@skye.ed.ac.uk> <2045@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au> <4319@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: NEC Information Systems Australia Pty. Ltd.
Lines: 18

In article <4319@skye.ed.ac.uk> richard@aiai.UUCP (Richard Tobin) writes:
>
>There is no reason for sbrk() and malloc() to "not mix" provided you're
>careful not to free memory you didn't allocate.  On the other hand,
>there's not usually a good reason to not just use malloc().
>

Well there may be no reason, but in reality most malloc(3) implementations
assume that it and no one else has called sbrk(2).  I'm sure that pre-System V
implementations were known to break if you mixed sbrk(2) and malloc(3).

I could be wrong, but I know I've been burnt by this before.
Don't call sbrk(2) after malloc(3).  Core dumps assured.  


Boyd Roberts			boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au

``When the going gets wierd, the weird turn pro...''