Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site delftcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!rdin!delftcc!sam
From: sam@delftcc.UUCP (Sam Kendall)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c,net.unix,net.bugs.usg,net.bugs.v7
Subject: Avoid large static objects (Re: max size of automatic arrays?)
Message-ID: <112@delftcc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Dec-85 01:04:56 EST
Article-I.D.: delftcc.112
Posted: Tue Dec 10 01:04:56 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Dec-85 21:43:57 EST
References: <627@ttrdc.UUCP>
Organization: Delft Consulting Corp., New York
Lines: 20
Xref: linus net.lang.c:6805 net.unix:6016 net.bugs.usg:365 net.bugs.v7:111

In article <627@ttrdc.UUCP>, levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes:
> ....
> Trying to use [a very large] "static" [array] also worked, by the way, but
> produced a 1.6 Meg executable and was a bit slow to compile and invoke.
				||
This brings up an interesting point: on many UNIX systems (V7, System V
Release 2.0, but NOT 4.2 BSD), static objects, even unitialized ones, are
never put into BSS storage.  So if your program has large arrays, make
them external even if they logically should be static.  Otherwise you
will share Daniel's wretched fate.			  ^
				||			  Q:|
				||			  |/
				||			  |
				||			 / \
-----|	Sam Kendall--------------------------allegra  ! delftcc!sam
-----|_	Delft Consulting Corp.  	seismo!cmcl2 /
       \(212) 243-8700			       ihnp4/
	ARPA: delftcc!sam@nyu.ARPA or @nyu-cmcl2.ARPA
  think	     got     posting       midnight	      Glub	glub
I       I've     the         after          disease.	   glub