As Steve Franks wrote: > Probably if the pictures had > > *__malloc_heap_end == __heap_end > > instead of > > __malloc_heap_end == __heap_end > > that would do the trick. At least in my mind.
It has a point, but it's not very exact either: it suggests __malloc_heap_end were a pointer which it isn't. I thought about writing (__malloc_heap_end) == __heap_end, but I'm not sure whether this is clear to everyone. *&_malloc_heap_end == __heap_end looks just like gibberish. ;-) -- cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
