From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@euclid.skiles.gatech.edu [130.207.146.50]) by melb.werple.net.au (8.7.5/8.7.3/2) with ESMTP id CAA03546 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 02:27:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id MAA27944; Sun, 30 Jun 1996 12:15:12 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 12:15:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Zoltan Hidvegi Message-Id: <199606301613.SAA01458@hzoli.ppp.cs.elte.hu> Subject: Re: bug (?) in 3.0-pre1 To: schaefer@nbn.com Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 18:13:13 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu In-Reply-To: <960629121357.ZM5651@candle.brasslantern.com> from Bart Schaefer at "Jun 29, 96 12:13:55 pm" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL17 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"R21PO.0.Vq6.FWgrn"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1488 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu > Seems like almost any of the MUSTUSEHEAP() functions should adjust and > then restore the allocation strategy internally, rather than relying on > every caller to do so ... But usually it is a bug if the caller use permanent allocation. In most places zsh uses heap allocation. It is an exception when a function uses permanent allocation and in that case it must always be very careful. I know that you do not like this heap very much but I still think that it simplifies the code and makes memory management faster. Zoltan