Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!borland.com!alexande
From: alexande@borland.com (Mark Alexander)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: Memory Models in TC2.0
Message-ID: <1991Jun7.163057.28170@borland.com>
Date: 7 Jun 91 16:30:57 GMT
References: <4660001@pollux.svale.hp.com> <1991Jun6.164518.20769@borland.com> <1991Jun6.182748.27627@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Organization: Borland International
Lines: 19

In article <1991Jun6.182748.27627@hubcap.clemson.edu> grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy) writes:
>alexande@borland.com (Mark Alexander) writes:

[Something hasty about malloc() being identical to farmalloc() in large data
models...]

>Sorry.  In large data memory models, malloc() is still not identical to
>farmalloc().  
>  To wit, the prototypes (less _cdecl and the like) are
>    void * malloc(size_t size);
>    void far *farmalloc(unsigned long size);

You're right - my mistake.  But other than that, the functions really
are the same.  Effectively, malloc() puts a zero in the high word of
the size and jumps to the common entry point for both functions.

I still don't understand what the problem was in the original posting,
though.  If someone has a simple test program that demonstrates a
problem with malloc(), I'd be happy to look at it.