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 EEE28BB84 for ; Sat, 20 May 2006 03:51:41 +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 k4K1pfl4012873 for ; Sat, 20 May 2006 03:51:41 +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 DAA32245 for ; Sat, 20 May 2006 03:51:40 +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 k4K1peiq012870 for ; Sat, 20 May 2006 03:51:40 +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 1FhGd0-0003Pq-00; Sat, 20 May 2006 03:51:38 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66C221E029; Fri, 19 May 2006 21:52:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 21:52:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Hurt X-X-Sender: bhurt@localhost.localdomain To: Frederick Akalin Cc: caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Array 4 MB size limit In-Reply-To: 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 446E762D.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 446E762C.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; comming:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 suggesting:02 brian:04 brian:04 bits:04 bits:04 size:95 fri:05 long:05 problem:05 problem:05 million:93 quite:06 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, Frederick Akalin wrote: > I think that's an awfully simplistic point of view. My problem is that I > want to store more than 4 million items in an array. You're suggesting > moving to 64 bits? And even if everyone magically moves to 64 bits, I can > imagine that in the future someone will want to read more than 2^(64 - 10) > items from a file into memory, as 64 bits isn't quite "number of atoms in the > universe" big yet. And in 20 years or so, assuming Moore's law holds, we'll need to transition to 128-bit architectures. Servers should probably transistion a little sooner, maybe 15 years out. Of course, a large hunk of my annoyance here is comming from C-99 and long long- breaking conformant code in a desperate (and- might I add- futile) attempt to patch broken and non-conformant code around what will be a temporary problem (the only question left is the definition of temporary). Eventually, just going to 64 bits will be the solution- just like just going to 32 bits was the solution to the 640K limit. Brian