Bob Ammerman wrote:

> Wouter van Ooijen replied:
>> Note that the three examples you cite do not use 'general'
>> malloc/free-style dynamic memory. Did you use a compiler-provided
>> (C-style) malloc at all? I understand that you certainly did not use
>> free. 
>> 
>> In all three cases you took explicit action to avoid fragmentation.
>> Except for the double-pointer example approach one could argue that
>> (in the other two) you don't use dynamic memory at all: you might as
>> well have used one or more statically allocated arrays and hand out
>> (and take back) array entries.
> 
> Absolutely. Although in the C++ case the application 'thinks' it is
> using normal 'new' and 'delete'. I just replaced the 'new handler',
> which is actually supported by the C++ standard, IIRC. 

This is exactly my point. When using something like the heap, one needs
to plan that carefully -- as carefully as using static memory, and
except for the syntax, it often isn't that different from using static
arrays -- just hidden under several layers of syntax. 

Gerhard
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist