Re: Memory Allocation : Static or Dynamic?

In article <slrng26f6m.mou.nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Antoninus Twink  <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>What's going on is that in your process's virtual address space, memory
>is arranged like this:

>-----------------------
>|                     |
>|       STACK         |
>|  (grows downwards)  |
>|                     |
>-----------------------
>|                     |
>|     FREE MEMORY     |
>| (available for the  |
>|   stack or heap)    |
>|                     |
>-----------------------
>|                     |
>|        HEAP         |
>|   (grows upwards)   |
>|                     |
>-----------------------

>So if you run out of free memory and overflow the stack, you can see
>that bad things will happen.


You truly are an amazing mind-reader! I don't know how you do it!!
*Knowing* with certainty that the original poster is now and will
always be using a system on which the stack grows downwards
and the heap grows upwards.

It doesn't happen that way in the system I'm using right now (a
general-purpose system that at one time was the market leader in
several different computing niches), and it doesn't happen that way
when you start dealing with threads; and it isn't unusual for it not to
happen that way once you start considering where -exactly- shared
libraries get mapped into memory...

-- 
  "It's a hard life sometimes and the biggest temptation is to let
  how hard it is be an excuse to weaken."        -- Walter Dean Myers