From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Apr 12 15:59:17 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id PAA29393
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 12 Apr 1995 15:59:17 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id PAA29386
          ; Wed, 12 Apr 1995 15:59:15 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.cdrom.com: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol
To: Ed Hudson <elh@p5.spnet.com>
cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 12 Apr 95 08:20:16 PDT."
             <199504121520.IAA07172@p5.spnet.com> 
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 15:59:15 -0700
Message-ID: <29385.797727555@freefall.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com>
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 	a while ago i encountered an 'application almost bug' wherein
> 	sbrk(1) returns (old_mem+1).  Some other unix's
> 	(e.g., SunOS) return a double word aliged value.

[Not familiar with the vagaries of either sbrk() on FreeBSD or SunOS, it
 being a long time since I've had to worry about such things!]

So you're saying that in either case you get an extra byte of storage,
but in SunOS's case it pads the allocation out to the next doubleword
boundry and hands you a suitably aligned pointer?

Hmmmmmm.  I can't think of anything that would _break_ under the BSD
model, can anyone else?  If not, I see nothing wrong with Ed's argument..

					Jordan