From: gene.buckle@bbs.retroarchive.org.remove-101r-this   
      
     To: Jim Leonard   
   Jim wrote:   
   > From Newsgroup: comp.lang.pascal.borland   
   >   
   > 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    
   allocation 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.   
      
   Is it likely that their heap manager is more efficient or faster?   
      
   What version of Turbo Pascal are you referencing?   
      
   g.   
      
   --   
   Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007   
   http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.   
   http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.   
   Some people collect things for a hobby.  Geeks collect hobbies.   
      
   ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment   
   A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.   
   http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!   
   --- Synchronet 3.16c-Win32 NewsLink 1.103   
   The Retro Archive - telnet://bbs.retroarchive.org   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)