Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!vsi1!ubvax!ardent!rap!rap From: rap@rap.ardent.com (Rob Peck) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: File Requester Library Message-ID: <6396@ardent.UUCP> Date: 10 May 89 16:30:37 GMT Sender: news@ardent.UUCP Reply-To: rap@rap.ardent.com (Rob Peck) Organization: Ardent Computer Corp., Sunnyvale, CA Lines: 42 Brian Rhodefer responded directly via email to my earlier posting: > > In article <6374@ardent.UUCP> you write: > >"malloc" could be used to allocate these buffers in the first place > >so that the user code need never even "free" the buffers on exit > >since this is usually done when a program exists anyhow. Of course > >it is not good programming practice but if one forgets to tell the > >file requester to deallocate all of the cached file buffers, if the > >filereq.library used malloc, it should not cause any problems. > > > > Are you referring, perhaps, to Manx' "malloc"? It seems this way > because Manx' malloc has this property of "auto-releasing". It has > another property, though: it is most definitely NOT re-entrant. > I don't think you could use it in shared-library code. > > Brian Rhodefer > Yes, I was referring to either Manx or Lattice 'malloc', but not having the source to the libs, would not have been aware that the code was not re-entrant. Would assume, however, that if I re-propose that malloc be used if and only if surrounded with a Forbid/Permit pair, that might solve the problem? Maybe I better find someone that has the source and be sure. Manx malloc uses global variables? Can anyone expand on this? Why would malloc not be useable in shared library code? Anyway, thanks Brian, for responding. May save someone else from a problem. Rob Peck