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