From owner-mint@fishpool.com Tue Sep 30 23:17:42 2003 From: Henk Robbers To: emutos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, mint@fishpool.com Subject: Re: [MiNT] Malloc Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:11:24 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1 References: <200309302252.05425.h.robbers@chello.nl> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200309302311.24128.h.robbers@chello.nl> Delivered-To: mint@fishpool.com Delivered-To: mint@lists.fishpool.fi X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: h.robbers@chello.nl Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-ID: X-List-ID: On Tuesday 30 September 2003 14:07, Frank Naumann wrote: > 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? Yes, size, next or prior pointers and the like. > > > 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. Exactly. I wanted to be absolutely sure. Thanks. -- Groeten; Regards. Henk Robbers. mailto:h.robbers@chello.nl http://members.ams.chello.nl/h.robbers/Home.html Interactive disassembler: TT-Digger; http://digger.atari.org A Home Cooked teXt editor: AHCX The free desktop: TERADESK