Less good ;-) results from Rittle's string allocator

[Loren James Rittle]

In article < 3C03978F.431C4DC0@unitus.it > you write:
> Of course, in the second set of results, N=400 and M=20 ;-)

No problem.  I don't know why I admit this in public but I crashed my
machine *twice* yesterday looking at your test case before I
correlated the problem and knew it was easily repeatable. ;-)

Somehow, one just doesn't notice that a short test case will
eventually attempt to allocate 2^400 bytes (of course, it dies long
before that point on most hardware due to sizeof size_t, the fact that
total swap space requirements may well exceed that ever to be
available on Earth, etc ;-).

This is on a machine that *never* crashes.  Why did it crash?  I
learned a new rule today: "Don't allow unlimited-sized core dumps on a
memory file system."

Regards,
Loren