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 E0D00BB83 for ; Fri, 26 May 2006 20:34:26 +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 k4QIYQ54013036 for ; Fri, 26 May 2006 20:34:26 +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 UAA00598 for ; Fri, 26 May 2006 20:34:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp01.isp.itmonitor.net (smtp01.isp.itmonitor.net [207.158.33.182]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k4QIYOos013033 for ; Fri, 26 May 2006 20:34:25 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.4] (66-81-196-231.socal.dialup.o1.com [66.81.196.231]) by smtp01.isp.itmonitor.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23206A5FAB8; Fri, 26 May 2006 11:34:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <44774A29.1070104@tfb.com> Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:34:17 -0700 From: Ken Rose Reply-To: rose@acm.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060426 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Hurt Cc: Jozef Kosoru , caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Array 4 MB size limit References: <20060515141230.ajyupn2z28k0484s@horde.akalin.cx> <446986DF.1070308@inria.fr> <446D5E4A.8060005@akalin.cx> <20060519162844.GA32550@osiris.uid0.sk> <20060520105108.GC32550@osiris.uid0.sk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 44774A32.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 44774A30.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; garbage:01 silently:01 silently:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 tend:02 off-topic:02 brian:04 size:95 size:95 long:05 long:05 suggestions:05 badly:06 standard:07 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 Brian Hurt wrote: > On the other side, increasing the array size has a cost. Among other > things, it slows down garbage collection. If done badly, it could break > existing code. The C-99 standard did this- by introducing long long, it > *silently* broke conformant code. I've yet to forgive them for doing > this. More to the point, it silently broke *my* code. Which is why I'm > violently allergic to suggestions that we "patch around" the 32-bit > limitation. When people suggest this, I tend to hear "I want to break > your code". Because that's how it worked last time. Maybe I'm being dense here, and maybe this is off-topic, but how did long long break things in C99? Thanks - ken