how to create an array for 15000 integers?

[CBFalconer]

I think it would be possible, if make your array with a file.

At first divide the array to some parts.
And make sure only a using bit of the array loaded to a main memory.

Incomprehensible. See the following links.

--
If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, ensure
you quote enough for the article to make sense. Google is only
a poor interface to usenet. There is no reason to assume your
readers can, or ever will, see any previous articles.
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

 

[jacob navia]

Obviously the fact that the original poster mentioned that he's using
a particular compiler does not necessarily imply that the thread is,
or should be, about that compiler.

The original poster also wrote (or his news software wrote on his
behalf):


We may reasonably infer from this that the thread is about C.

Since Miracl C is a real mode DOS compiler, I answered

"You are using Miracl C, what is a DOS C ompiler. Under DOS you just
can't do anything big like that, and specially the stack is a precious
ressource to be used with utmost care. "

What is wrong with that answer?

Nothing but the desire of all "regulars" of having fun
each time I write something, in destroying it,
making lies about what I said, etc.

Look at this guy: Mr "Bos":

"... to make sweeping, false, and off-topic generalisations about the
platform that implementation runs on"

So, telling the user that the "stack is a precious ressource
to be used with utmost care" under MSDOS is a "sweeping, false and
off topic generalization".

WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE ?????

 

[Random832]

Obviously the fact that the original poster mentioned that he's using
a particular compiler does not necessarily imply that the thread is,
or should be, about that compiler.

The original poster also wrote (or his news software wrote on his
behalf):


We may reasonably infer from this that the thread is about C.

In all fairness, on a compiler that adheres to the bare minimum object
size limits (as many DOS compilers do), if you have an array of 15000
integers [and, we'll assume that sizeof(int) is at least 2, since though
technically legal it's VERY rare for it to be 1], you've got room for
precious little else anywhere, let alone "on the stack" (ObTranslation:
STACK = STorage, AutomatiC duration [can't think of anything with a K]).

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Random832 said:

(ObTranslation:
STACK = STorage, AutomatiC duration [can't think of anything with a K]).

Keith?

 

[Bebert]

Amazing ignorance. I haven't even thought about such things for
quite a few years. I suggest you get and use DJGPP.

why should someone STILL use such abominations like dos extenders
and MS-DOGs in 2006 ?

is this a joke ?

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Bebert said:

why should someone STILL use such abominations like dos extenders
and MS-DOGs in 2006 ?

1) Because they want to. Reason plays no part here. If wishes were wishes,
we'd wish for our wishes, and round and round it goes.
2) Because they're told to, by their boss, professor, or other Significant
Authority Figure. Reason plays no part here either. "Because I say so,
that's why!"
3) Because they're constrained by cost factors that make them unable to
afford a more advanced operating system (either because it's too expensive
per se, or because its hardware demands are beyond their means). Consider,
for example, charities, third world schools, etc. Just last year, I visited
the headquarters of an international charitable organisation where *all* of
the computers were running Windows 95, which is basically a DOS extender
with delusions of grandeur.
4) Because they're unwilling to change a working mission-critical system.
5) Because they're *unable* to change the operating system (e.g. because the
machine is in orbit or something).
6) All the reasons I haven't thought of in the minute or two I was thinking
about it.

is this a joke ?

No, it's just that you didn't think it through properly.

 

[Richard Bos]

Richard Bos a écrit :

The original poster wrote

That does not mean that the thread is about that compiler. Especially
not in this group.

But obviously you can't read.

That's rich, coming from you.

Richard

 

[Random832]

That does not mean that the thread is about that compiler. Especially
not in this group.

But do you think that on such a compiler, which may only support the
minimum environmental limits, that declaring an array of 15000 of
anything in automatic storage is _advisable_?

 

[Keith Thompson]

But do you think that on such a compiler, which may only support the
minimum environmental limits, that declaring an array of 15000 of
anything in automatic storage is _advisable_?

Possibly not. *Any* implementation may impose different limits on
automatic vs. static storage. It's certainly worth pointing out that
the limit on static storage is typically higher than the limit on
automatic storage.

 

[Richard Bos]

But do you think that on such a compiler, which may only support the
minimum environmental limits, that declaring an array of 15000 of
anything in automatic storage is _advisable_?

Of course not. But that does not warrant the extrapolation, wrong _and_
off-topic as it is, to all MS-DOS systems.

Richard