🚀 go-pugleaf

fortunat@interpath.com (Jumpstile Turner) wrote:


>>Are you sure that GlobalAlloc doesn't wind up calling
>>
>
>  You didnt finish this line.  I assume you mean GlobalAlloc doesn't 
>wind up calling HeapAlloc?  As far as I understand GlobalAlloc still 
>calls 16-bit memory rather than 32-bit memory.  I could be wrong, but 
>in one of my Win32 books floating around here it states that Win95 
>Explorer still uses GlobalAlloc to allocate memory for "Drag and Drop" 
>data structures and that this is 16-bit RAM it is allocating.  It also 
>states that GlobalAlloc is much slower than using HeapAlloc or 
>VirtualAlloc.  I haven't tested this much, but it sure SEEMS slower 
>when I switch HeapAlloc calls to GlobalAlloc.  Although this might be 
>the power of suggestion. :)  However I've read this in more than one 
>place so I'd just assume it was correct.

In Win32, GlobalAlloc and LocalAlloc are the same function.  They
allocate memory from the process' 32-bit heap.  There is a difference
between HeapAlloc for backard compatibility in that LMEM_MOVEABLE
allocated handles are doubly indirect pointers (void **) to the
memory.

See Peitrek's "Windows 95 Programming Secrets" for more info.

rm





---
Robert Mashlan | R2M Software
rmashlan@r2m.com http://www.transport.com/~rmashlan
Internet Resources for Windows Developers
http://www.r2m.com/windev/