Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!genie!udel!haven.umd.edu!socrates.umd.edu!socrates!rockwell
From: rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Rockwell)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Halting Problem Solved! Film at 11! (Was Re: definitions)
Message-ID: <ROCKWELL.91May18101410@socrates.umd.edu>
Date: 18 May 91 15:14:10 GMT
References: <30620@dime.cs.umass.edu> <TcT422w164w@mantis.co.uk>
Sender: rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Rockwell)
Organization: Traveller
Lines: 16
In-Reply-To: mathew@mantis.co.uk's message of 17 May 91 18: 32:28 GMT

Mathew "CNEWS MUST DIE" writes:
   The result of running the program will be different according to
   the amount of memory the program is running in -- either virtual
   memory, or physical memory if the machine has no VM.

Yeah, but you can always be facist about it and have your compiler
specify a fixed sized memory model.  In some applications this is even
a feature :-)

Of course, if the size of data objects depends on run-time conditions,
you're still out of luck (at best you'll be able to implement a
crippled version of your program), but FORTRAN programmers have been
living with constraints like that forever.  (One workaround is
re-compile a lot).

Raul Rockwell