Browse thread
Array 4 MB size limit
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Richard Jones <rich@a...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Array 4 MB size limit |
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