Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site intelca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!intelca!kds
From: kds@intelca.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards,net.eunice
Subject: Re: Bizzare Bourne Shell (well, not really)
Message-ID: <263@intelca.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 15-May-84 18:51:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: intelca.263
Posted: Tue May 15 18:51:03 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 17-May-84 05:43:19 EDT
References: <1820@sdccsu3.UUCP>
Organization: Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
Lines: 16
Xref: 1248 13

>The Unix Programmer's Manual says that all newly allocated memory is
>initialized to zero......
>.........Indeed, Unix only zeros memory when a new MMU
>segment of memory is allocated.  Also, this code will generate a memory
>fault if p happens to point to a new MMU segment.  I contend that this

And Eunice does this also, also, it seems that even calls to
get memory using malloc, etc. do not always create zeroed out memory
areas (as someone suggested).  In addition, unless you set some special 
loader flags you may not get contiguous memory allocated, which creates mucho
problems with, for example, nroff! (and, apparently, sh)

But, its better than RAW VMS...verbum sat sapentia
-- 
Ken Shoemaker, Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
{pur-ee,hplabs,ucbvax!amd70,ogcvax!omsvax}!intelca!kds