Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!brl-adm!brl-sem!ron
From: ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: new standard for malloc() suggested
Message-ID: <517@brl-sem.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 14-Dec-86 14:12:46 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-sem.517
Posted: Sun Dec 14 14:12:46 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Dec-86 03:01:10 EST
References: <311@bms-at.UUCP> <1790@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>
Organization: Electronic Brain Research Lab
Lines: 10
Keywords: why not?

In article <1790@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, braner@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (braner) writes:
> []
> 
> Aha, now that we've been reminded of the low ceiling for malloc()'s
> argument (an unsigned int, which on some systems is only 16 bits):

Of course, on many of these machines you can't allocate more than 2**64
bytes of memory (at one time, or ever)...

=Ron