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 62E72BB83 for ; Mon, 22 May 2006 12:40:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k4MAeR2q031405 for ; Mon, 22 May 2006 12:40:28 +0200 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA11478 for ; Mon, 22 May 2006 12:40:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from furbychan.cocan.org (furbychan.cocan.org [80.68.91.176]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k4MAeQbb031380 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 22 May 2006 12:40:27 +0200 Received: from rich by furbychan.cocan.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Fi7pi-0006Jg-00; Mon, 22 May 2006 11:40:18 +0100 Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 11:40:18 +0100 To: Frederick Akalin Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Array 4 MB size limit Message-ID: <20060522104018.GA18283@furbychan.cocan.org> References: <20060515141230.ajyupn2z28k0484s@horde.akalin.cx> <446986DF.1070308@inria.fr> <446D5E4A.8060005@akalin.cx> <20060519162844.GA32550@osiris.uid0.sk> <20060521092600.GA15039@furbychan.cocan.org> <5CE30707-5DCE-4A22-970E-A49C36F9C901@akalin.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5CE30707-5DCE-4A22-970E-A49C36F9C901@akalin.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: Richard Jones X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4471951B.003 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4471951A.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; two-level:01 notepad:01 2006:98 22.:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 pair:01 defining:02 compiling:02 negligible:04 bits:04 bits:04 size:95 meant:05 marketing:93 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 Sun, May 21, 2006 at 02:48:30AM -0700, Frederick Akalin wrote: > I agree that 64-bit machines are cheap these days, but what I meant > was that forcing the users of my software, if I were to release it, > to move to 64 bit just to run my program is ludicrous. What's even > more ludicrous is I would have to explain that the hard limit in 32 > bits isn't 2^31 or 2^32, but 2^22. If I had total control over the > machines that would run my software, mandating 64 bits would be > viable, but otherwise it's not, as 32 bit machines will be around for > a while yet. Well, the solution - which has been pointed out to you at least twice - is to use a two-level array when compiling on 32 bit machines. (On 64 bit machines, just use the normal array mechanism - you can hide the difference by defining a pair of operators). The slow down should be negligible. Rich. -- Richard Jones, CTO Merjis Ltd. Merjis - web marketing and technology - http://merjis.com Team Notepad - intranets and extranets for business - http://team-notepad.com