Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!harpo!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!hocda!hou3c!ka
From: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Bizzare Bourne Shell
Message-ID: <570@hou3c.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-May-84 14:05:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou3c.570
Posted: Mon May 14 14:05:15 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 16-May-84 07:12:22 EDT
References: <1820@sdccsu3.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 14

I contend that given the code

	p = sbrk(0); *p = 1; sbrk(2);

a memory fault should be generated when the second statement is executed
because it references memory above the break point.  If the program
catches memory faults and increases the break value, then after the
second sbrk the value of *p should be one.  In practice most hardware
will not allow you to set a break value to an arbitrary location so this
code may not generate a memory fault, but the value of *p should never
the less be one after the second sbrk.

None of this is intended to excuse the other faults of the Borne shell.
				Kenneth Almquist