Getting the file name from a FILE *

[Richard Tobin]

When malloc is in conflict with their own memory manager.

Do they actually work in such a way that malloc() *conflicts* with
their memory manager, rather than just being independent of it?

-- Richard

 

[Richard]

Walter did. Note the underlined referances.

Once more. Please read what you are replying to. Your contributions are
become more useless by the post. If you don't have anything to offer,
then keep quiet.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Once more. Please read what you are replying to. Your contributions are
become more useless by the post. If you don't have anything to offer,
then keep quiet.

Excuse me. If the regs stopped posting useless/wrong stuff, all you'd
hear in here would be crickets.

And where would be the fun in that? I say: Keep it comin'!

 

[Richard]

Excuse me. If the regs stopped posting useless/wrong stuff, all you'd
hear in here would be crickets.

And where would be the fun in that? I say: Keep it comin'!

Not true. Heathfield might be a pompous ass, but he does know his C and
can, at times, take a practical approach. Sometimes. I expect to seem
him get worse though as "vippstar" tries his best to dislodge him in the
"Indeed" stakes.

 

[Richard Tobin]

IF you did, then please explain how this make sense:

"The amount of space required corresponds to the number of
simultaneously open files, not the total number ever opened."

FYI, assume that a program open X files, load the content of all X
files, then close X files.

This seems to be the very "all open at once" interpretation which you
said was stupid.

At this point, the "simultaneously open files" are only 3. If free()
implementation has no explicit system call to free the space allocated,
the memory required by the program at this point, does _not_ correspond
to 3 files, but to

3 + X

files.

Ok, the maximum number of simultaneously open files. If you read the
files one after another (and close them as you go along), the memory
will be available to malloc() to reuse. You would only need memory
for all 3+X if all 3+X were simultaneously open at some time, which is
why I asked why you would have all the icon files open at once.

-- Richard

 

[Richard Tobin]

Ok, the maximum number of simultaneously open files.

???

I give up, you contradict yourself too much, is 3 + X equal to the total
number ever opened, or NOT?

You can't have it both ways, ref:

"The amount of space required corresponds to the number of
simultaneously open files, not the total number ever opened."[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, I'm completely lost. Perhaps someone else (if anyone's
bothered to follow it) could resolve the point.

-- Richard

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...


Once more. Please read what you are replying to. Your
contributions are become more useless by the post. If you don't
have anything to offer, then keep quiet.

Well, with my change in news-servers resulting in a new troll-file,
you have so far escaped installation. No longer. You are now
properly classified with Twink and McCormack. Bye.