On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Jon Sargeant <<a href="mailto:delta17@cox.net">delta17@cox.net</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Perhaps, but very unlikely. An allocation of 2 gigabytes or more is<br>
probably a bug.</blockquote><div><br>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".<br>
<br>-Chandler<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
>> I'm not necessarily saying that NumElements should be<br>
>> signed, only that the choice between signed and unsigned is not obvious.<br>
><br>
> Obviously, obviousness is in the eye of the beholder :-)<br>
> (SCNR)<br>
<br>
</div>Yes. But consider that there are many people who agree with me. Search<br>
for "unsigned vs signed - Is Bjarne Mistaken?" in comp.lang.c++.moderated.<br>
<br>
Best Regards,<br>
<font color="#888888">Jon<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu">LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a> <a href="http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu" target="_blank">http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>