Test if pointer points to allocated memory

[Christian Bau]

Re: Test if pointer points to allocated memory

In article <6d1334df.04012 12316.5b824cab@ posting.google. com>,
rahul_dev_agg@h otmail.com (rahul dev) wrote:
[color=blue]
> malloc() library function uses brk() and sbrk() to increase the
> address space of a process.[/color]

Does it? I always thought it called NewPtr (). Oh, I see, you are
talking about completely system dependent behavior that only a complete
idiot would rely on in portable code...
[color=blue]
> sbrk() is a system call that ask
> the kernel to allocate space at the end of "data segment" of
> the process.[/color]

Since I use a machine that doesn't have sbrk(), or a kernel, or a data
segment, of use could that information be?
[color=blue]
> So, the address returned by malloc() should always
> be greater than the end of data segment.
> Now, the end of data segment may be found by printing the address
> of the symbol "end" or the address of the symbol "_end". These
> symbols are defined with the appropriate values by the linker.
> Or you may use "objdump" to find out the addresses of data segments
> of your executable.
>
> -rd[/color]

[Jared Dykstra]

Re: Test if pointer points to allocated memory

CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yah oo.com> wrote in message news:<400EC3AD. 78816531@yahoo. com>...[color=blue]
> Andrew wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > Is there anyway to test if a pointer points to allocated memory or
> > not?
> > For example if I have a pointer such as char *p is there a standard
> > way to test whether an assignment such as the following has been
> > applied?
> > p = (char *) malloc(sizeof(c har) * n);[/color]
>
> Don't cast malloc. It is unnecessary and hides errors.
>
> To all practical purposes, your answer is no. However if you
> execute "free(p);" and the program goes BOOM you can be fairly
> sure that p was not malloced, or has already been freed. I'm sure
> this is a great help and comfort to you.[/color]

Often free()ing an invalid pointer will not cause a runtime error
immediately. Most of the time you will not encounter an error until
the following malloc()

CBFalconer's solution undefined and dangerous territory in which to
tread.

---
Jared Dykstra

http://www.bork.org/~jared

[Joona I Palaste]

Re: Test if pointer points to allocated memory

Christian Bau <christian.bau@ cbau.freeserve. co.uk> scribbled the following:[color=blue]
> In article <6d1334df.04012 12316.5b824cab@ posting.google. com>,
> rahul_dev_agg@h otmail.com (rahul dev) wrote:[color=green]
>> malloc() library function uses brk() and sbrk() to increase the
>> address space of a process.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Does it? I always thought it called NewPtr (). Oh, I see, you are
> talking about completely system dependent behavior that only a complete
> idiot would rely on in portable code...[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> sbrk() is a system call that ask
>> the kernel to allocate space at the end of "data segment" of
>> the process.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Since I use a machine that doesn't have sbrk(), or a kernel, or a data
> segment, of use could that information be?[/color]

Interesting, what sort of computer are you using that doesn't have a
kernel?

--
/-- Joona Palaste (palaste@cc.hel sinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"You could take his life and..."
- Mirja Tolsa

[Richard Bos]

Re: Test if pointer points to allocated memory

rahul_dev_agg@h otmail.com (rahul dev) wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Andrew wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > Is there anyway to test
> > > if a pointer points to allocated memory or not?[/color][/color][/color]

No. That is, a null pointer is guaranteed not to point to any object;
but if a pointer is non-null, there's no way of finding out whether it
is valid, or if so, what kind of memory it points at.
[color=blue]
> malloc() library function uses brk() and sbrk() to increase the
> address space of a process.[/color]

You don't know that. Maybe on your system they do; all the ISO C
Standard requires is that malloc() attempts to get some memory for the
caller, by whatever means the implementor's author thought best.

In fact, all your comments are highly system-specific.

Richard

[August Derleth]

Re: Test if pointer points to allocated memory

Joona I Palaste wrote:
[color=blue]
> Christian Bau <christian.bau@ cbau.freeserve. co.uk> scribbled the following:
>[color=green]
>>In article <6d1334df.04012 12316.5b824cab@ posting.google. com>,
>> rahul_dev_agg@h otmail.com (rahul dev) wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>malloc() library function uses brk() and sbrk() to increase the
>>>address space of a process.[/color][/color]
>
>[color=green]
>>Does it? I always thought it called NewPtr (). Oh, I see, you are
>>talking about completely system dependent behavior that only a complete
>>idiot would rely on in portable code...[/color]
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>sbrk() is a system call that ask
>>>the kernel to allocate space at the end of "data segment" of
>>>the process.[/color][/color]
>
>[color=green]
>>Since I use a machine that doesn't have sbrk(), or a kernel, or a data
>>segment, of use could that information be?[/color]
>
>
> Interesting, what sort of computer are you using that doesn't have a
> kernel?
>[/color]

Could be running an embedded system, where libc handles things right
down to the bare metal.

Could be running PC-DOS, where the `kernel' is simply a program loader
and an interrupt handler. (Calling something so simple a kernel now
would get one laughed out of the industry. ;) )

Could be running an exokernel system, where the process can request
specific addresses in RAM from an extremely minimal resource-protection
procedure that is loosely called a kernel. Comparing an exokernel system
to a monolithic kernel or even a microkernel is an exercise in
stretching definitions, perhaps beyond their breaking point.

The point being, as I'm sure you know, that odd systems exist
/everywhere/ and that Standard C is a good way to handle the complexity
(mainly because it allows us to forget about such things).

--
My address is yvoregnevna gjragl-guerr gjb-gubhfnaq guerr ng lnubb qbg pbz
Note: Rot13 and convert spelled-out numbers to numerical equivalents.

[CBFalconer]

Re: Test if pointer points to allocated memory

rahul dev wrote:[color=blue]
> <E.Robert.Tisda le@jpl.nasa.gov > wrote[color=green]
> > Andrew wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > Is there anyway to test
> > > if a pointer points to allocated memory or not?
> > > For example, if I have a pointer such as char *p
> > > is there a standard way to test whether an assignment
> > > such as the following has been applied?[/color]
> >[color=darkred]
> > > char* p = (char*)malloc(s izeof(char)*n);[/color]
> >
> > if (p > (char*)(&p)) {
> > // p probably points to a character in automatic storage
> > // (the program stack)
> > }
> > else {
> > // p probably points to static data or free storage
> > }
> >
> > But, of course, the ANSI/ISO C standards do *not* specify this.[/color]
>
> malloc() library function uses brk() and sbrk() to increase the
> address space of a process. sbrk() is a system call that ask
> the kernel to allocate space at the end of "data segment" of
> the process. So, the address returned by malloc() should always
> be greater than the end of data segment.
> Now, the end of data segment may be found by printing the address
> of the symbol "end" or the address of the symbol "_end". These
> symbols are defined with the appropriate values by the linker.
> Or you may use "objdump" to find out the addresses of data segments
> of your executable.[/color]

This sort of answer illustrates the danger of allowing Trollsdale
posts to go unchallenged. brk/sbrk are not part of the C
standard, and their actions (if present) are non-portable and thus
immaterial on c.l.c. Everybody should be aware that ANYTHING
written by Tisdale aka Trollsdale is immediately suspect and
probably nonsense.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yah oo.com) (cbfalconer@wor ldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home .att.net> USE worldnet address!

[Joona I Palaste]

Re: Test if pointer points to allocated memory

CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yah oo.com> scribbled the following:[color=blue]
> rahul dev wrote:[color=green]
>> <E.Robert.Tisda le@jpl.nasa.gov > wrote[color=darkred]
>> > Andrew wrote:
>> > > Is there anyway to test
>> > > if a pointer points to allocated memory or not?
>> > > For example, if I have a pointer such as char *p
>> > > is there a standard way to test whether an assignment
>> > > such as the following has been applied?
>> >
>> > > char* p = (char*)malloc(s izeof(char)*n);
>> >
>> > if (p > (char*)(&p)) {
>> > // p probably points to a character in automatic storage
>> > // (the program stack)
>> > }
>> > else {
>> > // p probably points to static data or free storage
>> > }
>> >
>> > But, of course, the ANSI/ISO C standards do *not* specify this.[/color]
>>
>> malloc() library function uses brk() and sbrk() to increase the
>> address space of a process. sbrk() is a system call that ask
>> the kernel to allocate space at the end of "data segment" of
>> the process. So, the address returned by malloc() should always
>> be greater than the end of data segment.
>> Now, the end of data segment may be found by printing the address
>> of the symbol "end" or the address of the symbol "_end". These
>> symbols are defined with the appropriate values by the linker.
>> Or you may use "objdump" to find out the addresses of data segments
>> of your executable.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> This sort of answer illustrates the danger of allowing Trollsdale
> posts to go unchallenged. brk/sbrk are not part of the C
> standard, and their actions (if present) are non-portable and thus
> immaterial on c.l.c. Everybody should be aware that ANYTHING
> written by Tisdale aka Trollsdale is immediately suspect and
> probably nonsense.[/color]

It was rahul dev, not Trollsdale, who wrote all that crap about brk/
sbrk and "_end" symbols.

--
/-- Joona Palaste (palaste@cc.hel sinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"I am looking for myself. Have you seen me somewhere?"
- Anon

[Dan Pop]

Re: Test if pointer points to allocated memory

In <buo3g3$dd7$1@o ravannahka.hels inki.fi> Joona I Palaste <palaste@cc.hel sinki.fi> writes:
[color=blue]
>Christian Bau <christian.bau@ cbau.freeserve. co.uk> scribbled the following:
>[color=green]
>> Since I use a machine that doesn't have sbrk(), or a kernel, or a data
>> segment, of use could that information be?[/color]
>
>Interesting, what sort of computer are you using that doesn't have a
>kernel?[/color]

Most computers don't have a kernel (they are very small chips used in
embedded control applications; your PC probably contains several of them).

OTOH, they don't have hosted C implementations , either, so Christian's
point about malloc on kernel-less computers is moot: freestanding
implementations need not provide malloc at all.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Dan.Pop@ifh.de

[pete]

Re: Test if pointer points to allocated memory

E. Robert Tisdale wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Jack Klein wrote:
>[color=green]
> > E. Robert Tisdale wrote:
> >
> > Undefined behavior.
> > p and &p are not pointers to the same object
> > or one past the same object or array.[/color]
>
> Please elaborate. Why does that make a difference?
>[color=green]
> >
> >[color=darkred]
> >> // p probably points to a character in automatic storage
> >> // (the program stack)[/color]
> >
> > Not all processors have a stack.[/color]
>
> But they all have "automatic storage".
> The typical implementation of automatic storage is on the program stack.
>[color=green]
> > Even for those that do, you are
> > you are making the unwarranted and unproven assumption that
> > "the stack" resides at higher memory addresses than other areas.
> > I know of several architectures
> > where processor hardware requires that the stack be in low memory.[/color]
>
> Name one.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> }
> >> else {
> >> // p probably points to static data or free storage
> >> }[/color]
> >
> > Or is uninitialized. Or null.
> > Or points to allocated memory that has been free.
> >[color=darkred]
> >>But, of course, the ANSI/ISO C standards do *not* specify this.[/color]
> >
> > Neither does anyone with any sense, you included.[/color]
>
> I don't know whether I have any sense or not.
> But my assertion is easily tested:
>[color=green]
> > cat main.c[/color]
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
>
> int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
> //char c;
> //char* p = &c;
> char* p = (char*)malloc(s izeof(char));
> if (p > (char*)(&p)) {
> fprintf(stdout, "p probably points to a character "
> "in automatic storage.\n");
> }[/color]

C:\Program Files\DevStudio \SharedIDE\bin\ Debug>new
p probably points to a character in automatic storage.

--
pete

[CBFalconer]

Re: Test if pointer points to allocated memory

Joona I Palaste wrote:[color=blue]
> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yah oo.com> scribbled the following:[color=green]
> > rahul dev wrote:[color=darkred]
> >> <E.Robert.Tisda le@jpl.nasa.gov > wrote
> >> > Andrew wrote:[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> > > Is there anyway to test
> >> > > if a pointer points to allocated memory or not?
> >> > > For example, if I have a pointer such as char *p
> >> > > is there a standard way to test whether an assignment
> >> > > such as the following has been applied?
> >> >
> >> > > char* p = (char*)malloc(s izeof(char)*n);
> >> >
> >> > if (p > (char*)(&p)) {
> >> > // p probably points to a character in automatic storage
> >> > // (the program stack)
> >> > }
> >> > else {
> >> > // p probably points to static data or free storage
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > But, of course, the ANSI/ISO C standards do *not* specify this.
> >>
> >> malloc() library function uses brk() and sbrk() to increase the
> >> address space of a process. sbrk() is a system call that ask
> >> the kernel to allocate space at the end of "data segment" of
> >> the process. So, the address returned by malloc() should always
> >> be greater than the end of data segment.
> >> Now, the end of data segment may be found by printing the address
> >> of the symbol "end" or the address of the symbol "_end". These
> >> symbols are defined with the appropriate values by the linker.
> >> Or you may use "objdump" to find out the addresses of data segments
> >> of your executable.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > This sort of answer illustrates the danger of allowing Trollsdale
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
> > posts to go unchallenged. brk/sbrk are not part of the C
> > standard, and their actions (if present) are non-portable and thus
> > immaterial on c.l.c. Everybody should be aware that ANYTHING
> > written by Tisdale aka Trollsdale is immediately suspect and
> > probably nonsense.[/color]
>
> It was rahul dev, not Trollsdale, who wrote all that crap about brk/
> sbrk and "_end" symbols.[/color]

But he was triggered by the Trollsdale junk. I consider him a
poor sucker trolled by Trollsdale. See underlined.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yah oo.com) (cbfalconer@wor ldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home .att.net> USE worldnet address!

[Dan Pop]

Re: Test if pointer points to allocated memory

In <FrOPb.14946$xu 6.7032@fe02.use netserver.com> August Derleth <see@sig.now> writes:
[color=blue]
>Could be running PC-DOS, where the `kernel' is simply a program loader
>and an interrupt handler. (Calling something so simple a kernel now
>would get one laughed out of the industry. ;) )[/color]

Nope, it is a lot more than that. It provides many of the services
offered by the kernels of more sophisticated OSs; it's just that many
of them are extremely poorly implemented (console I/O very slow, serial
I/O unreliable at "high" speeds because is not interrupt driven) and
others are designed with a complete lack of security concerns in mind.

Actually version 2 was not so bad, given the hardware it was supposed to
run on. Things started to get bad by the time IBM introduced the AT/286
but the OS kept treating the machine as a fast 8086 and became absolutely
ludicrous when the AT/386 was treated as an even faster 8086 by the OS.
Yet, the OS design remained unchanged until its official death, in the
Pentium I era.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Dan.Pop@ifh.de

[Dan Pop]

Re: Test if pointer points to allocated memory

In <400FADAA.6C0C5 1E3@yahoo.com> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yah oo.com> writes:
[color=blue]
>rahul dev wrote:[color=green]
>> <E.Robert.Tisda le@jpl.nasa.gov > wrote[color=darkred]
>> > Andrew wrote:
>> >
>> > > Is there anyway to test
>> > > if a pointer points to allocated memory or not?
>> > > For example, if I have a pointer such as char *p
>> > > is there a standard way to test whether an assignment
>> > > such as the following has been applied?
>> >
>> > > char* p = (char*)malloc(s izeof(char)*n);
>> >
>> > if (p > (char*)(&p)) {
>> > // p probably points to a character in automatic storage
>> > // (the program stack)
>> > }
>> > else {
>> > // p probably points to static data or free storage
>> > }
>> >
>> > But, of course, the ANSI/ISO C standards do *not* specify this.[/color]
>>
>> malloc() library function uses brk() and sbrk() to increase the
>> address space of a process. sbrk() is a system call that ask
>> the kernel to allocate space at the end of "data segment" of
>> the process. So, the address returned by malloc() should always
>> be greater than the end of data segment.
>> Now, the end of data segment may be found by printing the address
>> of the symbol "end" or the address of the symbol "_end". These
>> symbols are defined with the appropriate values by the linker.
>> Or you may use "objdump" to find out the addresses of data segments
>> of your executable.[/color]
>
>This sort of answer illustrates the danger of allowing Trollsdale
>posts to go unchallenged. brk/sbrk are not part of the C
>standard, and their actions (if present) are non-portable and thus
>immaterial on c.l.c. Everybody should be aware that ANYTHING
>written by Tisdale aka Trollsdale is immediately suspect and
>probably nonsense.[/color]

By what kind of logic can Trollsdale be made responsible for the
nonsense written by other people, rahul dev, in this case?

C'mon, if you engage your brain, I'm sure you can tell the difference
between the lines prefixed by one '>' and those with no prefix at all.
You may even be able to decode the meaning of the line:

<E.Robert.Tisda le@jpl.nasa.gov > wrote

appearing at the beginning of a post (right after the headers): it
means that all the lines prefixed by a single '>' have been written
by Trollsdale, while those with no prefix have been written by the
poster whose name appears in the From header of the post (and in the
signature block, if present).

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Dan.Pop@ifh.de

[Dan Pop]

Re: Test if pointer points to allocated memory

In <400FC96A.459B6 779@yahoo.com> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yah oo.com> writes:
[color=blue]
>Joona I Palaste wrote:[color=green]
>> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yah oo.com> scribbled the following:[color=darkred]
>> > rahul dev wrote:
>> >> <E.Robert.Tisda le@jpl.nasa.gov > wrote
>> >> > Andrew wrote:[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> >> > > Is there anyway to test
>> >> > > if a pointer points to allocated memory or not?
>> >> > > For example, if I have a pointer such as char *p
>> >> > > is there a standard way to test whether an assignment
>> >> > > such as the following has been applied?
>> >> >
>> >> > > char* p = (char*)malloc(s izeof(char)*n);
>> >> >
>> >> > if (p > (char*)(&p)) {
>> >> > // p probably points to a character in automatic storage
>> >> > // (the program stack)
>> >> > }
>> >> > else {
>> >> > // p probably points to static data or free storage
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > But, of course, the ANSI/ISO C standards do *not* specify this.
>> >>
>> >> malloc() library function uses brk() and sbrk() to increase the
>> >> address space of a process. sbrk() is a system call that ask
>> >> the kernel to allocate space at the end of "data segment" of
>> >> the process. So, the address returned by malloc() should always
>> >> be greater than the end of data segment.
>> >> Now, the end of data segment may be found by printing the address
>> >> of the symbol "end" or the address of the symbol "_end". These
>> >> symbols are defined with the appropriate values by the linker.
>> >> Or you may use "objdump" to find out the addresses of data segments
>> >> of your executable.[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> > This sort of answer illustrates the danger of allowing Trollsdale
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
>> > posts to go unchallenged. brk/sbrk are not part of the C
>> > standard, and their actions (if present) are non-portable and thus
>> > immaterial on c.l.c. Everybody should be aware that ANYTHING
>> > written by Tisdale aka Trollsdale is immediately suspect and
>> > probably nonsense.[/color]
>>
>> It was rahul dev, not Trollsdale, who wrote all that crap about brk/
>> sbrk and "_end" symbols.[/color]
>
>But he was triggered by the Trollsdale junk. I consider him a
>poor sucker trolled by Trollsdale. See underlined.[/color]

A perfect non-sequitur. Your own comments apply to the text posted by
rahul dev and there is no way to blame that text on Trollsdale's advice,
especially considering that he was explicitly saying that it was *not*
based on the C standard.

Your lame attempt to save your ass from your previous mistake fools no
one. Believe me, there is no substitute for engaging your brain before
posting.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Dan.Pop@ifh.de

[David Resnick]

Re: Test if pointer points to allocated memory

andrew.zdenek@c a.com (Andrew) wrote in message news:<6536dc17. 0401210825.5428 3155@posting.go ogle.com>...[color=blue]
> Is there anyway to test if a pointer points to allocated memory or
> not?
> For example if I have a pointer such as char *p is there a standard
> way to test whether an assignment such as the following has been
> applied?
> p = (char *) malloc(sizeof(c har) * n);[/color]

Well, if you need to do this, there is one portable option. You could
"wrap" malloc, calloc, realloc, and free, and keep track of
the things allocated/freed. Of course, this only works for things
allocated under your control, which may not always be true of
all dynamically allocated memory you encounter (e.g. stuff from
libraries not owned by you). Anyway, the following might work
for you:

example program fragment, assumes you have some static hash
table accessed through the hash functions which store or
retrieve pointer values.

void *my_malloc(size _t size)
{
void *tmp = malloc(size);

if (tmp != NULL) {
hash_enter(tmp) ;
}

return tmp;
}

void my_free(void *ptr)
{
if (ptr != NULL) {
hash_remove(ptr );
free(ptr);
}
}

int ptr_was_allocat ed(void *ptr)
{
if (ptr != NULL && hash_contains(p tr)) {
return 1;
}
else {
return 0;
}
}

If the above doesn't suit you, you are out of luck in portable
C AFAIK. But if you are willing to use platform specific extensions,
you may have some options. If so, ask in a group dedicated to
your platform. Or you could leave such checking of
pointers out of your code, and use the tools available for your
platform while testing to detect invalid memory accesses -- for example
valgrind/electric fence/bounds checker/Purify/etc.

Good luck.

-David

[August Derleth]

Re: Test if pointer points to allocated memory

Dan Pop wrote:
[color=blue]
> In <FrOPb.14946$xu 6.7032@fe02.use netserver.com> August Derleth <see@sig.now> writes:
>
>[color=green]
>>Could be running PC-DOS, where the `kernel' is simply a program loader
>>and an interrupt handler. (Calling something so simple a kernel now
>>would get one laughed out of the industry. ;) )[/color]
>
>
> Nope, it is a lot more than that. It provides many of the services
> offered by the kernels of more sophisticated OSs; it's just that many
> of them are extremely poorly implemented (console I/O very slow, serial
> I/O unreliable at "high" speeds because is not interrupt driven) and
> others are designed with a complete lack of security concerns in mind.[/color]

Hm. I suppose I knew that (I do assembly-level DOS programming on
occasion, nearly always for 80386s or higher), but I tried to subsume it
under the rubric of `interrupt handler'. In other words, I was being
somewhat facetious and trying to imply that anything like PC-DOS,
MS-DOS, or DR-DOS (or any of the lesser-known clones) is /not/ a Real OS
by my (Unix-informed) standard. ;)

It's also interesting to hear just how broken PC-DOS truly was. Wasn't
that IBM's in-house project? No wonder they embraced Linux so quickly:
Moderately code must make them downright ecstatic, when compared to what
they'd have done on their own. ;)
[color=blue]
>
> Actually version 2 was not so bad, given the hardware it was supposed to
> run on. Things started to get bad by the time IBM introduced the AT/286
> but the OS kept treating the machine as a fast 8086 and became absolutely
> ludicrous when the AT/386 was treated as an even faster 8086 by the OS.
> Yet, the OS design remained unchanged until its official death, in the
> Pentium I era.[/color]

Bah. Bogosity and cruft, taken to an absurd degree. I can understand
(maybe) not using the half-baked extra features introduced in the 80286,
but not jumping with both feet on the 80386's 32-bit addressing and
general strides in the direction of becoming a Real Architecture?
Mind-boggling.

(I consider the 8086 to be an abortion of a design, and the 80386
Intel's semi-awakening to the world of ISA sanity. Nothing as pretty as
a VAX or even a Motorola 68000, but not nearly as painful to program
assembly for.)
[color=blue]
>
> Dan[/color]


--
My address is yvoregnevna gjragl-guerr gjb-gubhfnaq guerr ng lnubb qbg pbz
Note: Rot13 and convert spelled-out numbers to numerical equivalents.