🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <11469@s.ms.uky.edu>, sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
> In article <5171@cs.Buffalo.EDU> ugkamins@sunybcs.UUCP (John Kaminski) writes:
> >hee hee....That actually has a serious note.  The UNIX standard for malloc()
> >has no defined semantic for types of memory, at least that I'm aware of.
 
> Ha Ha Ha Ha! Ho Ho Ho Ho! Hee Hee Hee Hee!
 
> Standard? What standard? SVID? Posix? BSD? Minix? Xenix? Dynix? RTU?
 
> Ha hah ha ha ha ha!

I do not understand why you think this is funny.  

All the operating systems you named have the same calling sequence and
semantics for malloc, even though Minix, Dynix and RTU have never been
seriously supported as standards.

Access to special memory (eg. graphics memory, shared memory, etc) required 
special routines and system calls, as does the Amiga.

In fact, malloc has the same semantics on the Amiga as implemented in both 
vendors' C libraries as Unix et al.
-- 
-- uunet!sugar!karl  | "Time is an illusion.  Lunchtime doubly so."
--		     |				-- Ford Prefect
-- Usenet BBS (713) 438-5018