Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:21815 comp.os.misc:684
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
From: Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: TSR's and Memory Manag. in DOS
Message-ID: <2397e628@ralf>
Date: 3 Dec 88 13:03:36 GMT
Sender: ralf@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu
Lines: 19
In-Reply-To: <12706@steinmetz.ge.com>

In article <12706@steinmetz.ge.com>, dixon@sagittarius.steinmetz (walt dixon) writes:
}The basic problem that the orignal requestor faces is one of memory
}fragmentation.  The transient part of command.com processes batch files.
}It must be loaded into memory.  In bringing this transient code into
}memory,  command.com fragments the available memory.

The transient part does not actually use up a memory block!  That's how it
can be overwritten. COMMAND.COM requests a sufficiently large memory block,
and then deallocates the block.

The real problem is the 48- to 96-byte memory block used to store the
information needed to process a batch file.  This is what creates the
fragmentation.

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
Disclaimer? I     |Ducharm's Axiom:  If you view your problem closely enough
claimed something?|   you will recognize yourself as part of the problem.