Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!medar!jseymour From: jseymour@medar.com (James Seymour) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: free() in SAS C Message-ID: <1991May11.182709.16787@medar.com> Date: 11 May 91 18:27:09 GMT References: <1991May07.164814.2538@medar.com> <1991May8.235041.17893@NCoast.ORG> Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Organization: Medar, Inc. Farmington Hills, MI Lines: 49 [This thread is leading in a direction not appropriate to the present newsgroup IMHO, so note followup-to] In article <1991May8.235041.17893@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/AA) writes: |As quoted from <1991May07.164814.2538@medar.com> by jseymour@medar.com (James Seymour): |+--------------- || In article chopps@ro-chp.UUCP (Chris Hopps) writes: || >By ANSI def. you can only (m|c|re)alloc 64k blocks and less. || >RTFM :^) || >SAS/C Volume 2, Page L19-22. || || *really* an ANSI-imposed 64k malloc limit? This hardly seems reasonable || to me. Heck, if I wanted 64k limits, I coulda bought a MeSsy-DOS box || (shudder). |+--------------- | |ANSI is in the business of codifying the maximum capabilities that are common |to every system they can find and calling it a "standard"... 64K may well be |it, thanks to that bloody Intel-based hack you mentioned. :-( | Heh... This is similar to the argument made by my manager (as to why 64k may really be an ANSI standard). I argued against it - allowing as how restricting the rest of the world to the limitations of a particular chip- set (the Intel one in particular) was unreasonable. [ ranting, raving, & rambling follows...] This is why I bought an Amiga and why I go out of my way to avoid the MS-DOS boxes and MS-DOS-oriented projects at work. After programming for *real* operating systems (UNIX/Xenix, various real-time, and AmigaDOS), I simply detest MS-DOS (and just about anything related to it or ported from it). Perhaps I've developed an unreasonable aversion to anything even closely related to MS-DOS, IBM-PCs and their clones, etc., but I'd almost rather program for CP/M. At least it doesn't pretend to be something it isn't. I try to write portable code, and stick with ANSI compatable stuff when possible, but I've decided to ignore MS-DOS when writing code because I don't care to place limitations on what I can do based on MS-DOS limitations and Intel iAPX-86 (previous to '386 protected mode) capabilities (or lack thereof). |++Brandon |-- -- Jim Seymour | Medar, Inc. ...!uunet!medar!jseymour | 38700 Grand River Ave. jseymour@medar.com | Farmington Hills, MI. 48331 CIS: 72730,1166 GEnie: jseymour | FAX: (313)477-8897