From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 874E6BB84 for ; Fri, 19 May 2006 23:19:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ptb-relay02.plus.net (ptb-relay02.plus.net [212.159.14.213]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k4JLJJWK023707 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 19 May 2006 23:19:20 +0200 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=chetara) by ptb-relay02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1FhCNT-0000X8-Fo for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Fri, 19 May 2006 22:19:19 +0100 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Array 4 MB size limit Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 22:26:34 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <20060515141230.ajyupn2z28k0484s@horde.akalin.cx> <446D5E4A.8060005@akalin.cx> <20060519162844.GA32550@osiris.uid0.sk> In-Reply-To: <20060519162844.GA32550@osiris.uid0.sk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200605192226.34917.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 446E3657.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml's:01 arrays:01 arrays:01 ocaml:01 2006:98 28,:98 2006.:98 frog:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 char:01 extensible:01 strings:01 caml:02 filesystem:02 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Friday 19 May 2006 17:28, Jozef Kosoru wrote: > Yes. 32-bit x86 platform is not going away anytime soon. Given that 512M > RAM is now standard and 1G RAM is very common for an average PC - having > a programming language with 4M limit for the array size is like to have > an 8+3 characters filename limitation on a filesystem using a mainstream > 300G disk in 2006. I find it more concerning that array length is a function of the type, i.e. different for float array. > However I understand the techical difficulty to solve > this issue - it's pretty annoying anyhow :) Agreed. Should OCaml's successor have extensible arrays with 64-bit lengths and strings as char arrays? -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. Objective CAML for Scientists http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists