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 C4CA9BBAF for ; Sat, 20 May 2006 02:56:57 +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 k4K0uu5T008584 for ; Sat, 20 May 2006 02:56:57 +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 CAA31109 for ; Sat, 20 May 2006 02:56:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from luna.vie.lunde.net (at.lunde.net [62.116.13.60]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k4K0uscC008580 for ; Sat, 20 May 2006 02:56:55 +0200 Received: from h-68-166-100-33.nycmny83.covad.net ([68.166.100.33] helo=localhost.localdomain) by luna.vie.lunde.net with asmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1FhFm1-0002y4-00; Sat, 20 May 2006 02:56:53 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E64BBA20A; Fri, 19 May 2006 20:57:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 20:57:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Hurt X-X-Sender: bhurt@localhost.localdomain To: Jozef Kosoru Cc: caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Array 4 MB size limit In-Reply-To: <20060519162844.GA32550@osiris.uid0.sk> Message-ID: References: <20060515141230.ajyupn2z28k0484s@horde.akalin.cx> <446986DF.1070308@inria.fr> <446D5E4A.8060005@akalin.cx> <20060519162844.GA32550@osiris.uid0.sk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 446E6958.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 446E6956.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; intel's:01 itanium:01 delayed:01 ocaml's:01 patching:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 seems:03 limitations:04 brian:04 brian:04 fix:04 fix:04 size:95 docs:05 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Fri, 19 May 2006, 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 This is what boggles my imagination. The combination of obstinate adherence to a limited platform (x86-32) in the same breath as a recognition that we are approaching the limitations of that architecture. It's the 640K limit all over again. And no, segments will not help the situation. Every single process is limited to 4G of address space, period. Read the Intel CPU docs. With reasonable amounts of virtual memory we're well above that already- and we're approaching that with real memory. Now, I realize the core reasons for the delay in moving to 64-bits are industry wide. Intel's Itanium fiasco delayed Intel introducing a 64-bit chip at least 7 years. And Microsoft seems to be incapable of releasing a new OS- 32-bit or 64-bit. But that, I think, is the core of the problem- Ocaml's array limit is just one of many symptoms. And that's my point- we should be looking to fix the underlying problem, not looking to patch the symptoms. Because often times patching the symptoms and not addressing the core problem simply makes the whole situation worse- the underlying problem simply shows up in new ways, and the fix for the specific symptom often causes new problems. Brian