Problems reserving memory with the 'malloc' command

[anon856525]

Hi

I recently downloaded Turbo C v2.01 from the borland web site where
its being given out for free. Has anyone else tried this?

Ive been using it for some months now and hav'nt noted any probems.
its very usable even without the user manual. My one problem is when
reserving memory with the 'malloc' command in the huge memory model.
your only allowed 180k about with a small test program. other texts
claim that turbo c can use at least 1 meg. base memory is 640k and so
it means that at least 460k is being used by T.C., the OS, the program
in memory, ect....

I've also had some lock-ups with the program im working on when i
reserve over 60k.

Anyone know how much memory this version of TC can actualy use?

Thanks.

[jacob navia]

an********@gmail.com wrote:

Hi

I recently downloaded Turbo C v2.01 from the borland web site where
its being given out for free. Has anyone else tried this?

Ive been using it for some months now and hav'nt noted any probems.
its very usable even without the user manual. My one problem is when
reserving memory with the 'malloc' command in the huge memory model.
your only allowed 180k about with a small test program. other texts
claim that turbo c can use at least 1 meg. base memory is 640k and so
it means that at least 460k is being used by T.C., the OS, the program
in memory, ect....

I've also had some lock-ups with the program im working on when i
reserve over 60k.

Anyone know how much memory this version of TC can actualy use?

Thanks.

You are using a 16 bit mode, DOS program that can use up to
500K maybe more, maybe less. Try running your programs after
unloading the development environment of course.

You can do BIG programs within that environment.

I wrote a lisp interpreter with it, using the overlay feature.
It featured most of Common Lisp, even with a bignum package
and graphics.

But it is COMPLETELY outdated now. You are wasting your time.
Fetch another compiler from the web and program under a 32 bit
system. There you can have a more sensible environment
(forget the "hug" model with its 400K and start programming
in the flat model with 2GB)

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[Default User]

an********@gmail.com wrote:

Hi

I recently downloaded Turbo C v2.01 from the borland web site where
its being given out for free. Has anyone else tried this?

Ive been using it for some months now and hav'nt noted any probems.
its very usable even without the user manual. My one problem is when
reserving memory with the 'malloc' command in the huge memory model.
your only allowed 180k about with a small test program. other texts
claim that turbo c can use at least 1 meg. base memory is 640k and so
it means that at least 460k is being used by T.C., the OS, the program
in memory, ect....

Compiler specific questions are not appropriate here. You need to find
a Borland newsgroup.

Brian

[Richard Heathfield]

an********@gmail.com said:

Hi

I recently downloaded Turbo C v2.01 from the borland web site where
its being given out for free. Has anyone else tried this?

Yes.

Ive been using it for some months now and hav'nt noted any probems.

Good!

its very usable even without the user manual.

Agreed.

My one problem is when
reserving memory with the 'malloc' command in the huge memory model.
your only allowed 180k about with a small test program.

That sounds pretty huge to me. I forget - how big is size_t (bit count) in
Turbo?

other texts
claim that turbo c can use at least 1 meg.

Not necessarily all in one lump, though. In any case, as long as you can
create an object at least 32767 bytes in size, Turbo C has fulfilled its
conformance obligations.

base memory is 640k and so
it means that at least 460k is being used by T.C., the OS, the program
in memory, ect....

....Well, not necessarily. It is also possible that Turbo C is making those
memory assumptions about its environment (e.g. the amount of memory taken
by the OS), even though they may not be valid nowadays. No programmer is a
perfect prophet.

>
I've also had some lock-ups with the program im working on when i
reserve over 60k.

That might conceivably be due to bugs in your code, wouldn't you agree?

Anyone know how much memory this version of TC can actualy use?

It only *has* to give you 32767 bytes. Anything more than that, you should
treat as a welcome bonus.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

an********@gmail.com wrote:

>Hi

I recently downloaded Turbo C v2.01 from the borland web site where
its being given out for free. Has anyone else tried this?

Ive been using it for some months now and hav'nt noted any probems.
its very usable even without the user manual. My one problem is when
reserving memory with the 'malloc' command in the huge memory model.
your only allowed 180k about with a small test program. other texts
claim that turbo c can use at least 1 meg. base memory is 640k and so
it means that at least 460k is being used by T.C., the OS, the program
in memory, ect....

Compiler specific questions are not appropriate here. You need to find
a Borland newsgroup.

A topical reply was possible in this case. See elsethread. I invite you to
give some thought as to whether sending people packing is necessarily the
best way to teach them the value of standard C.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[CBFalconer]

an********@gmail.com wrote:

>
I recently downloaded Turbo C v2.01 from the borland web site
where its being given out for free. Has anyone else tried this?

Ive been using it for some months now and hav'nt noted any
probems. its very usable even without the user manual. My one
problem is when reserving memory with the 'malloc' command in
the huge memory model. your only allowed 180k about with a small
test program. other texts claim that turbo c can use at least 1
meg. base memory is 640k and so it means that at least 460k is
being used by T.C., the OS, the program in memory, ect....

It has, IIRC, two possible requirements. The smaller is when it is
working entirely in memory and prepares object code that the
resident debugger can handle. This means that the basic IDE never
gets out of memory. The larger is when it always prepares the
object code on the disk, when it has the OS limitations only.

So look for options such as 'Compile to disk' and set them if you
need the space.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Default User]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Default User said:

Compiler specific questions are not appropriate here. You need to
find a Borland newsgroup.

A topical reply was possible in this case. See elsethread. I invite
you to give some thought as to whether sending people packing is
necessarily the best way to teach them the value of standard C.

I'm sure you thought your reply was illuminating for the OP, but
somehow I doubt it.


Brian

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Default User said:

Compiler specific questions are not appropriate here. You need to
find a Borland newsgroup.

A topical reply was possible in this case. See elsethread. I invite
you to give some thought as to whether sending people packing is
necessarily the best way to teach them the value of standard C.

I'm sure you thought your reply was illuminating for the OP, but
somehow I doubt it.

Potentially illuminating, my dear chap, potentially illuminating. More
illuminating than telling him to push off.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[anon856525]

jacob navia wrote:

an********@gmail.com wrote:

Hi

I recently downloaded Turbo C v2.01 from the borland web site where
its being given out for free. Has anyone else tried this?

Ive been using it for some months now and hav'nt noted any probems.
its very usable even without the user manual. My one problem is when
reserving memory with the 'malloc' command in the huge memory model.
your only allowed 180k about with a small test program. other texts
claim that turbo c can use at least 1 meg. base memory is 640k and so
it means that at least 460k is being used by T.C., the OS, the program
in memory, ect....

I've also had some lock-ups with the program im working on when i
reserve over 60k.

Anyone know how much memory this version of TC can actualy use?

Thanks.

You are using a 16 bit mode, DOS program that can use up to
500K maybe more, maybe less. Try running your programs after
unloading the development environment of course.

You can do BIG programs within that environment.

I wrote a lisp interpreter with it, using the overlay feature.
It featured most of Common Lisp, even with a bignum package
and graphics.

But it is COMPLETELY outdated now. You are wasting your time.
Fetch another compiler from the web and program under a 32 bit
system. There you can have a more sensible environment
(forget the "hug" model with its 400K and start programming
in the flat model with 2GB)

Thanks to everyone for their advices.

To explain the situation, my computer runs Windows 95 and only has 16
MB of RAM, so I don't really need to move up to 2 GB address spaces :)

Actually I have some problem with my Windows installation, and it's
really slow and sluggish when I start up, and there's huge amount of
network activity - very expensive on ppm dial up :( So I usually just
boot up to good old MS-DOS.

There are lots of things I really like about DOS, like how you can
make a pointer and just write directly to video memory and whatever -
everything's too much more constrained in Windows.

Anyway I tried what people advised and found I could get up to about
400 KB or 500 KB by making seperate malloc calls instead of a big call
- weird, huh? So thanks for the suggestions.

[jameskuyper]

[e-mail] wrote:
....

Anyway I tried what people advised and found I could get up to about
400 KB or 500 KB by making seperate malloc calls instead of a big call
- weird, huh? ...

Not particularly. Depending upon your implementation, it's not at all
unusual for the largest single block you can allocate to be
substantially smaller than the total space you can allocate if you do
so in smaller pieces.