Extended memory

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Peter Tipton, Jun 6, 2010.

  1. Peter Tipton

    Peter Tipton Guest

    Dear fellow MS-DOS C programmers:

    I am a Microsoft C 6.0 user thinking of switching to Borland C++
    3.1. My main concern is accessing about 7 megs of extended memory past
    the 640K limit imposed by DOS. I am already using large linked lists
    rather than multidimensional arrays to conserve memory, but I still need
    more. Does anyone know about Borland's Extended Memory Interface or its
    VROOM features? For example, will it let me access this much memory? Is
    there a counterpart in Borland C++ to Microsoft's _huge pointers? Can I
    mix memory models with Borland (i.e. _huge pointers with a large memory
    model compilation)? Any other thoughts on or reactions to Borland's
    product would be much appreciated.
     
    Peter Tipton, Jun 6, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Peter Tipton

    Ben Pfaff Guest

    Peter Tipton <> writes:

    > I am a Microsoft C 6.0 user thinking of switching to Borland C++
    > 3.1. My main concern is accessing about 7 megs of extended memory past
    > the 640K limit imposed by DOS. I am already using large linked lists
    > rather than multidimensional arrays to conserve memory, but I still need
    > more. Does anyone know about Borland's Extended Memory Interface or its
    > VROOM features? For example, will it let me access this much memory? Is
    > there a counterpart in Borland C++ to Microsoft's _huge pointers? Can I
    > mix memory models with Borland (i.e. _huge pointers with a large memory
    > model compilation)? Any other thoughts on or reactions to Borland's
    > product would be much appreciated.


    I think that this question would be more likely to receive good
    responses in comp.os.msdos.programmer.
    --
    Ben Pfaff
    http://benpfaff.org
     
    Ben Pfaff, Jun 6, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Peter Tipton

    Sjouke Burry Guest

    Peter Tipton wrote:
    > Dear fellow MS-DOS C programmers:
    >
    > I am a Microsoft C 6.0 user thinking of switching to Borland C++
    > 3.1. My main concern is accessing about 7 megs of extended memory past
    > the 640K limit imposed by DOS. I am already using large linked lists
    > rather than multidimensional arrays to conserve memory, but I still need
    > more. Does anyone know about Borland's Extended Memory Interface or its
    > VROOM features? For example, will it let me access this much memory? Is
    > there a counterpart in Borland C++ to Microsoft's _huge pointers? Can I
    > mix memory models with Borland (i.e. _huge pointers with a large memory
    > model compilation)? Any other thoughts on or reactions to Borland's
    > product would be much appreciated.

    Use the Watcom free compiler, quite professional, has 16 ans 32 bit
    support, and a very useful help function.
    (oh and if you need it , also an assembler and a fortran compiler)
     
    Sjouke Burry, Jun 6, 2010
    #3
  4. Peter Tipton

    Gene Guest

    On Jun 6, 4:05 pm, Peter Tipton <> wrote:
    > Dear fellow MS-DOS C programmers:
    >
    >      I am a Microsoft C 6.0 user thinking of switching to Borland C++
    > 3.1.  My main concern is accessing about 7 megs of extended memory past
    > the 640K limit imposed by DOS.  I am already using large linked lists
    > rather than multidimensional arrays to conserve memory, but I still need
    > more.  Does anyone know about Borland's Extended Memory Interface or its
    > VROOM features?  For example, will it let me access this much memory?  Is
    > there a counterpart in Borland C++ to Microsoft's _huge pointers?  Can I
    > mix memory models with Borland (i.e. _huge pointers with a large memory
    > model compilation)?  Any other thoughts on or reactions to Borland's
    > product would be much appreciated.


    Traditional linked lists usually require _more_ memory than carefully
    allocated arrays because you'll use at least four bytes per pointer in
    addition to the data space. Moreover, if you call malloc() to allocate
    list nodes, there is probably a space overhead (often 4 bytes) for an
    allocation header. You might want to look at DJ Delorie's good old
    djgcc http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/ . I ran programs requiring over
    100 MB of RAM under MSDOS with that system. I don't think it's
    activly maintained any more, but neither is MS V6 or BCC.
     
    Gene, Jun 6, 2010
    #4
  5. Gene <> wrote:
    > ...You might want to look at DJ Delorie's good old
    > djgcchttp://www.delorie.com/djgpp/.  I ran programs
    > requiring over 100 MB of RAM under MSDOS with that
    > system.  I don't think it's activly maintained any
    > more, ...


    Don't be fooled by the 'last updated' references on the
    web pages. Unless it's been abandoned in the last twelve
    months, it's still keeping good pace with gcc.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter Nilsson, Jun 7, 2010
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Kholdoun TORKI

    IEEE ICM'2004 Extended Call For Papers

    Kholdoun TORKI, Aug 17, 2004, in forum: VHDL
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    468
    Kholdoun TORKI
    Aug 17, 2004
  2. brrrdog
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    845
    brrrdog
    Jul 9, 2003
  3. E r i c
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    380
    E r i c
    Aug 11, 2003
  4. Navanith
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    5,298
    Navanith
    Dec 30, 2003
  5. gk
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    551
    Chris Uppal
    Oct 3, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page