DL>
  > hl> style, to ask the OS for more memory at every malloc.  Get a better
  > hl> Win compiler and insert correct code: it's your heap, you own it and
  >
  > In that case, I suppose Watcom must be a lousy OS/2 and NT compiler.  I'm
  > using it on both platforms.
  >
  > Sorry, I just didn't feel like buying a separate compiler for each platform
  > I wanted to target.
DL>

  Invalid assumptions and invalid conclusions.  Think about things for a
  moment, and you'll find that Hugo is correct _even_though_ you use
  Watcom C++ (which you didn't say in your original message, by the way,
  so quite how you expected Hugo to know that is beyond me).

  Hugo and I have both said that you've encountered a difference in the
  heap management used by your Win32 C++ compiler's runtime library and
  your OS/2 C++ compiler's runtime library -- a difference that indicates
  that the OS/2 one is the more efficient of the two.

  Just because you use Watcom C++ doesn't mean that it uses the same
  runtime library and heap management for both.  This is very rarely the
  case for any compiler (I wrote a cross-platform C++ runtime library
  once, but that was precisely because the one supplied used memory
  semantics that were tied to a specific platform.  Heap management is
  often "tuned" for the memory semantics of individual platforms.).

  And in fact it isn't the case for Watcom C++.  The OS/2 runtime library
  is in \WATCOM\LIB386\OS2, and the Win32 runtime library is in
  \WATCOM\LIB386\NT.

  > JdeBP <
___
 X MegaMail 2.10 #0:
--- Maximus/2 3.01