From Newsgroup: comp.lang.pascal.borlandallocation of 8 bytes instead of DOS's 16 bytes. The thing is, the heap manager compiles to nearly 1K, so it seems like this would have eaten up any savings gained by a smaller heap structure...? Any thoughts or comments welcome.
As the subject says. Since MS-DOS ever since version 2.0 has memory management functions (INT 21h/AH=48h, INT 21h/AH=49h, and INT 21h/AH=4Ah), why did Borland feel it necessary to implement their own heap manager?
The only possible reason I can think of is that Borland's management only uses 8 bytes of overhead instead of DOS's 16 bytes per overhead (per MCB), so I guess the advantage was that you could use 8 less bytes per allocation, and also allow a minimum
Is it likely that their heap manager is more efficient or faster?
What version of Turbo Pascal are you referencing?
The only possible reason I can think of is that Borland's management only uses 8 bytes of overhead instead of DOS's 16 bytes per overhead (per MCB),
so I guess the advantage was that you could use 8 less bytes per
allocation, and also allow a minimum allocation of 8 bytes instead of
DOS's 16 bytes.
... Since MS-DOS ever since version 2.0 has memory management functions (INT 21h/AH=48h, INT 21h/AH=49h, and INT 21h/AH=4Ah), why did Borland feel it necessary to implement their own heap manager?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 293 |
Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
Uptime: | 225:39:37 |
Calls: | 6,624 |
Calls today: | 6 |
Files: | 12,171 |
Messages: | 5,318,604 |