[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [MiNT] Malloc

To: Henk Robbers <h.robbers@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [MiNT] Malloc
From: Frank Naumann <fnaumann@mail.CS.Uni-Magdeburg.De>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:07:02 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: emutos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, mint@fishpool.com
Delivered-to: mint@fishpool.com
Delivered-to: mint@lists.fishpool.fi
In-reply-to: <200309302252.05425.h.robbers@chello.nl>
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=help>
List-id: <mint.lists.fishpool.fi>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:mint-request@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=unsubscribe>
References: <200309302252.05425.h.robbers@chello.nl>
Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi

Hello!

> Does the Gemdos Malloc blocks have a red tape area in the block itself?
> And if so, what size is it.

What do you understand under 'red tape area'? Adminstrative data?

> Why?
> Suppose 8192 is the the MiNT page size.
> I do not want to get 2 pages when I call Malloc(8192)
> because of some red tape.

The FreeMiNT kernel never stored any kernel/process administrative
informations in user space area if you mean this.


Ciao
   ...Frank

--
ATARI FALCON 040 // MILAN 060
-----------------------------------------
http://www.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~fnaumann/
e-Mail: fnaumann@freemint.de

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [MiNT] Malloc
  - From: Henk Robbers <h.robbers@chello.nl>

References:
- [MiNT] Malloc
  - From: Henk Robbers <h.robbers@chello.nl>

Prev by Date: Re: [MiNT] [MINTLIB][PATCH] Patches for OS bindings
Next by Date: [MiNT] Malloc
Previous by thread: [MiNT] Malloc
Next by thread: Re: [MiNT] Malloc
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread