Author: Heiner Marxen
Date: 12:10:08 12/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 05, 2003 at 13:49:31, F. Huber wrote: >On December 05, 2003 at 13:05:57, martin fierz wrote: > >>hi franz, >> >>i believe this might all be consistent: windows has different mem alloc >>functions, and the compiler translates "malloc" into one of them. so if the >>borland compiler translates it into "virtualalloc" while the MS compiler >>translates it into "heapalloc", you get exactly the kind of behavior you >>observed. Yes, that is what it looks like. >>if portability is not an issue, then you should use the windows functions. my >>book says you should use virtualalloc for large chunks of memory, and heapalloc >>for small chunks. heapalloc is supposed to be much slower when handling large >>amounts of memory. >> >>virtualalloc is quite easy to use, just do >> >>pointer = VirtualAlloc(0, number_of_bytes, MEM_RESERVE|MEM_COMMIT, >>PAGE_READWRITE); >>to allocate memory, and Does this funtion initialize the memory, like calloc() does, or does it leave it uninitialized, like malloc() does? >>VirtualFree(pointer, 0, MEM_RELEASE); >>to free it again. Also, I suspect, that something must be #include'd to get the manifests above (MEM_...). What does your docu say? >>cheers >> martin > >Hi again, > >that looks really simple - thanks for saving me a lot of time. :) > >I´ll try this, but since I´m not ´really´ a C-programmer (_my_ language >is Borland Delphi), and since I´m manipulating the source code of Heiner >Marxen, I must be _very_ carefully to not do any ´blunder´. > >Regards, >Franz. Franz, you can send me your modified code (snippet) per email, and I'll check it, based on the above description. Cheers, Heiner
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.