[LLVMdev] Reference Manual Clarifications 2

Chandler Carruth chandlerc at gmail.com
Mon Apr 21 22:56:36 PDT 2008

On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Jon Sargeant <delta17 at cox.net> wrote:

> Perhaps, but very unlikely.  An allocation of 2 gigabytes or more is
> probably a bug.

I don't have a strong opinion on this thread, I just wanted to point out
that I have on several occasions allocated more than 2 GB of memory. I can
think of a numerous apps I have worked on tangentially which (off the top of
my head) probably have some allocations in that range. I'd like to keep
32bits of room in my allocations. 63 bits is plenty for me though, hence my
lack of strong opinion. =D One bit is about the right size for a boolean
flag "broken".


> >> I'm not necessarily saying that NumElements should be
> >> signed, only that the choice between signed and unsigned is not
> obvious.
> >
> > Obviously, obviousness is in the eye of the beholder :-)
> > (SCNR)
> Yes.  But consider that there are many people who agree with me.  Search
> for "unsigned vs signed - Is Bjarne Mistaken?" in comp.lang.c++.moderated.
> Best Regards,
> Jon
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080421/c78ed6a9/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list