At 09:14 AM 8/21/01 -0500, [log in to unmask] wrote: >compaction/coalescing, whatever.... > > >Back in the 1990s, I used a compiler that did not > >defragment its internal free list. It's algorithm > >for managing memory ensured that no matter how well > >the application ensured things were deallocated, the > >free list would get longer and longer and more and > >more fragmented, and allocations would get slower > >and slower until there was no memeory left. > > > >When we complained to the vendor, they sent us a > >package containing nothing but two pragmas. By > >withing that package into our main program, we > >caused the linker to use malloc and free instead > >of the vendor's run-time manager. > > > >Result: thread-safe, efficient, reliable, RM-compliant > >memory management! So why on earth did they do what > >they did in the first place? Good question. An interesting example of "simplistic"? But then, one would need some statistics on data element size requirements/trends over time to know for sure HOW simplistic. sro S. Ron Oliver, semi-retired professor of Computer Science and Computer Engineering. www.csc.calpoly.edu/~sroliver caress Corporation is proud to be the U.S. representative for Top Graph'X, developers of high quality software components, using Ada. For more information, check out www.topgraphx.com.