Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!news.stack.nl!.POSTED.toad.stack.nl!not-for-mail
From: Marco van de Voort <marcov@toad.stack.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.pascal.borland
Subject: Re: Why did Turbo Pascal implement its own heap manager?
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 09:22:40 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Stack Usenet News Service
Message-ID: <slrnoc27n0.fm1.marcov@toad.stack.nl>
References: <ed1b7454-1574-488f-ba8c-43de064a0d2c@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 09:22:40 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mud.stack.nl; posting-host="toad.stack.nl:2001:610:1108:5010::135"; logging-data="70266"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@stack.nl"
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (FreeBSD)
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.pascal.borland:188

On 2017-02-08, Jim Leonard <MobyGamer@gmail.com> wrote:
> The only possible reason I can think of is that Borland's management only
> uses 8 bytes of overhead instead of DOS's 16 bytes per overhead (per MCB),
> so I guess the advantage was that you could use 8 less bytes per
> allocation, and also allow a minimum allocation of 8 bytes instead of
> DOS's 16 bytes.  

Or something requiring control in e.g. overlays ?