Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!ames!haven!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: inkey$, noecho, and other impossibles
Message-ID: <15406@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 11 Jan 89 13:44:56 GMT
References: <19@xenlink.UUCP> <225800106@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <310@twwells.uucp> <9338@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 15

-In article <15396@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
->Possibly.  In fact, malloc() might be one (`too machine dependent').

In article <9338@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
-malloc() can be implemented on all known systems for which a C
-implementation is otherwise feasible.  It might not be able to
-grow the process allocation at run time, but it can certainly
-dole out parcels from a pool that was allocated at link time.

Actually, I was thinking about machines in which different types
of objects must come from different address spaces (e.g., all
`pointer' objects should be in the range 0x70000000..0x7c000000).
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris