Re: huge pointer
From: CBFalconer (cbfalconer_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/26/04
- Next message: Dan Pop: "Re: Doubts regarding macros"
- Previous message: CBFalconer: "Re: Statically create a table of data in C: How?"
- In reply to: Dan Pop: "Re: huge pointer"
- Next in thread: Dan Pop: "Re: huge pointer"
- Reply: Dan Pop: "Re: huge pointer"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:53:12 GMT
Dan Pop wrote:
> malikguna@yahoo.com (guna) writes:
>
>> i prepare some book and also i tested that, huge pointer is
>
> Unless the book is dealing with computing history, huge pointers
> do not belong to it. They are an artefact of some ancient
> operating systems that have been killed and buried almost 10
> years ago. Let them rest in peace.
To paraphase a certain 'wise' sage, "4 GB should be enough for
anyone". With the appearance of 64 bit machinery the use of
segment:offset pointers may well reappear in the future, and it
would be well to consider better means of handling them than the
near, far, huge trilogy.
-- fix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". - Hutchison
- Next message: Dan Pop: "Re: Doubts regarding macros"
- Previous message: CBFalconer: "Re: Statically create a table of data in C: How?"
- In reply to: Dan Pop: "Re: huge pointer"
- Next in thread: Dan Pop: "Re: huge pointer"
- Reply: Dan Pop: "Re: huge pointer"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|