Re: Memory allocation strategy

[Rory Hewitt <rory.hewitt@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ooh, good point, I hadn't thought of that... My linked list stuff uses
offsets rather than pointers, so it works either way...
On Jan 8, 2011 7:53 PM, "Elbert Cook" <elbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If you allocate 100 bytes of memory and for some reason, there is a
pointer
> within those 100 bytes that points to a subset of itself.
>
> Now you realloc to 200 bytes and the 100 bytes gets move to a different
> memory range.
>
> Then the embedded pointer would still retain its original value and no
> longer point to a subset of itself at the new location.
>
> Lets not ask the question why someone would do that.
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> > From: "Rory Hewitt" <rory.hewitt@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2011 8:45 PM
> > To: "RPG programming on the IBM i / System i" <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: Memory allocation strategy
> >
> > Indeed, pointers in user-allocated memory are always retained, as far as
> I
> > know, even through multiple reallocations. If that weren't the case, all
> my
> > apps would fail...
>
> --
> This is the RPG programming on the IBM i / System i (RPG400-L) mailing
list
> To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
> or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.