Re: static, global variable memory allocation
- From: "matevzb" <matevzb@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 6 Feb 2007 13:30:59 -0800
On Feb 6, 9:40 pm, Eric Sosman <Eric.Sos...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Richard Heathfield wrote On 02/06/07 14:03,:Presumably to differentiate it from the stack - which is an ordered
santosh said:
<snip>
What a pointless interview question!
Well, I suppose you meant to say heap instead of head. The more proper
term is free store.
So I have always been led to believe, but I can find no reference to
this term in C89 (I didn't check C99, but I certainly recall that "free
store" was the allegedly canonical term well before C99 was ratified).
Does anyone know why "free store" is given canonical status?
I've got the opposite question: Does anyone know why
"heap" has come to mean just a big bucket of bytes, while
once upon a time it meant a specific kind of binary tree
(c.f. Heapsort)?
--
Eric.Sos...@xxxxxxx
pile and the heap isn't. Interestingly, stack seems to be mentioned
more often than heap, e.g. B reference manuals contain... erm... heaps
of stack?
--
WYCIWYG - what you C is what you get
.
- Follow-Ups:
- [OT] Re: static, global variable memory allocation
- From: Eric Sosman
- [OT] Re: static, global variable memory allocation
- References:
- static, global variable memory allocation
- From: fdmfdmfdm@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: static, global variable memory allocation
- From: santosh
- Re: static, global variable memory allocation
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: static, global variable memory allocation
- From: Eric Sosman
- static, global variable memory allocation
- Prev by Date: Re: cast a label into a char array....
- Next by Date: Re: associativity question
- Previous by thread: Re: static, global variable memory allocation
- Next by thread: [OT] Re: static, global variable memory allocation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|