Re: [Caml-list] Array 4 MB size limit

[Richard Jones <rich@annexia.org>]

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