Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!microsoft!jimad
From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Borland's C++ memory allocation problems
Message-ID: <57213@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 6 Sep 90 18:13:19 GMT
References: <59280@bbn.BBN.COM> <10344@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 23

In article <10344@hubcap.clemson.edu> grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy) writes:

[re a structure containing a hugh array]

>Are you also new to the Intel chip structure -- this is the main root of
>these problems.  An understanding of the languages invloved helps.  An
>understanding of the machine lets you vent your anger at Intel when you
>see all the stupidities that have to be built into Intel compilers.

I disagree.  Lots of compilers restrict structure size to 64K -- even
on machines with 32-bit flat pointers.  Many machines have instruction
sets that make short offsets into structures desirable.  So, if you write
code expecting huge structures to work, Intel is the least of your
problems.

The "right" thing to do is to make the array a separate allocation,
Intel chip, or no Intel chip.

[Personally, I find 386/486 machines have fine support for OOPL.  286s I
find frustrating.  Consider that for a little over $1K I can buy a 386sx
machine with 40Meg disk, 1Meg ram, 640x480 gray-scale display, etc.  Or
I can maybe buy a non-Intel machine with a tiny BW display and only a 
single floppy drive.... [standard disclaimer] ]