Re: segmentation fault when load more then 2.1 GB

[Daniel Heiserer]

address@hidden wrote:
> On  6-Oct-2004, Daniel Heiserer <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> | At least one object is larger then 2GB. I submitted a patch on February 
> | 12th 2003 which fixes that problem. I never got a feedback concerning 
> | the question for the "adverse effects" also I haven't seen the patch 
> | included till today. Unfortunately the people answering the thread 
> | focused on the bad timing of the "rand" function I used to demonstrate 
> | the usage :-(
> | 
> | The patch was:
> | http://www.octave.org/octave-lists/archive/bug-octave.2003/msg00306.html
>
> Your one-line change only allowed the >2GB allocation to succeed.
> After that, you would surely run into some problems with indexing,
> etc.
>
> | I am willing to help fixing all this "size" limitations quickly.
>
> Please see the recent discussion on the help list with the subject
> "matrix sizes".

Did anyone create now an octave_idx or is there an agreement howto 
implement a typedef for the indexing?
I cannot do this.
I could start crawling through the libraries and change them to this 
index-type once the core maintainers made up the starting decision howto 
do this. I would suggest that (one of) the next beta version has this
type defined.
I also suggest we do the same for the filepointer stuff. So we can 
adress the big stuff and make it configurable before the compilation.
It shouldn't be that a big deal to write a check routine which includes 
compiling and allocating and adressing these large entities.

-- daniel