Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st.tech
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!fauern!faui43.informatik.uni-erlangen.de!csbrod
From: csbrod@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Claus Brod)
Subject: Re: Ptermres()
Message-ID: <1991Apr12.170619.23554@informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Organization: CSD., University of Erlangen, Germany
References: <ENTROPY.91Mar31015905@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <1991Apr2.111427.27780@informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <wolfram.671104726@tschil> <1991Apr8.130807.3046@informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <2902@atari.UUCP>
Distribution: comp
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1991 17:06:19 GMT
Lines: 27

apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) writes:

>Ptermres(0,0) is unsafe.  Your TPA is shrunk to zero size (or freed) before
>the terminate happens, and therefore you are relying on the contents of
>memory that nobody owns: the contents of your basepage to process the
>terminate.  This is bad news. Don't do it.  The minimum size argument to
>Ptermres should be $80 (the size of your basepage, up to the command line).
>This wierd case is not one the authors of GEMDOS (including me)
>anticipated, so it's not enforced or anything.  I guess it could be.

This is what I expected. The discussion, however, was on the question
where malloc'ed blocks go to when you do a Ptermres(0, 0).
To my knowledge, the malloc'ed blocks vanish from both internal
memory lists and so stay resident. I don't see how code packed into
those blocks can crash if it doesn't rely on still being a process
of its own.

Having borrowed your ear 8-), I add a new question: How can one
test reliably if some GEMDOS drive is a BIOS controlled device
or a MetaDOS device?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Claus Brod, Am Felsenkeller 2,			Things. Take. Time.
D-8772 Marktheidenfeld, West Germany		(Piet Hein)
csbrod@medusa.informatik.uni-erlangen.de
Claus Brod@wue.maus.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------