From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "John T. Williams" Subject: Re: Newbie question on malloc() Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:52:32 -0400 Sender: linux-c-programming-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1086198752.29988.21.camel@localhost> References: <002d01c44897$78ae58d0$de01a8c0@qnessmphibiki> <1086196092.29970.2.camel@localhost> <16574.4399.288522.256729@cerise.nosuchdomain.co.uk> Reply-To: jtwilliams@vt.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <16574.4399.288522.256729@cerise.nosuchdomain.co.uk> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Glynn Clements Cc: jtwilliams@vt.edu, Wen Guangcheng , linux-c-programming What you never had win98 crash on you after running for an hour? ;) May statement is based on something I remember vaguely from my OS class 2 years ago, so I'm quite happy to believe I'm wrong. I remember there was some major issue with how win98 handled dynamic allocated memory, but I can't exactly remember what. After googling a little I seems that win95 had some problems with Garbage Collection not win98. On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 13:41, Glynn Clements wrote: > John T. Williams wrote: > > > As I understand it, that is entirely up to the operation system. Linux > > and NT Kernel systems do reclaim unfreed memory, however I believe one > > the major problems with Win98 was that it did not. > > > > Anyone with more information feel free to correct me > > I very much doubt that the above is accurate. > > It may be that Win98 had some specific memory leaks, but any OS which, > in the general case, failed to recover a process' memory upon > termination would run out of memory very quickly.