Re: Windows array allocation problem
- From: Roy Lewallen <w7el@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 18:47:34 -0700
Walter Spector wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:If that's true, then it's the answer to my question and the solution to my problem. If I know for sure how much will be unavailable, I can set the maximum allocation accordingly.
Note that the address space of a process can be further fragmented by
DSOs/DLLs - which can be dynamically loaded at various addresses at
run-time. Thus 'available memory' and 'available CONTIGUOUS memory'
can be two very different things...
Bottom line is that once your problem sizes start approaching 2 gbytes,
you need to start considering a change to a system supporting a 64-bit
memory model.
Unfortunately, I don't have the option of changing the systems of all the customers using this program.
All I need to know is how large an array I can reliably allocate. Surely there's some way to get this information in a 32 bit system.
From the responses I've gotten, it seems that allocating any array to any size is a risky business that might suddenly fail for lack of adequate contiguous memory.
Roy Lewallen
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Windows array allocation problem
- From: glen herrmannsfeldt
- Re: Windows array allocation problem
- References:
- Windows array allocation problem
- From: Roy Lewallen
- Re: Windows array allocation problem
- From: James Van Buskirk
- Re: Windows array allocation problem
- From: Steve Lionel
- Re: Windows array allocation problem
- From: Roy Lewallen
- Re: Windows array allocation problem
- From: Dan Nagle
- Re: Windows array allocation problem
- From: Roy Lewallen
- Re: Windows array allocation problem
- From: Walter Spector
- Windows array allocation problem
- Prev by Date: Re: Windows array allocation problem
- Next by Date: Re: rest energy and dp
- Previous by thread: Re: Windows array allocation problem
- Next by thread: Re: Windows array allocation problem
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|