Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 01:20:07 +0300, Rainer Schuetze r.sagita...@gmx.de
wrote:
There is only 2GB virtual memory available (3GB with some tweaks)
The allocation granularity doesn't affect virtual memory either (at
least according to all Process Explorer
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:19:09 +0300, Rainer Schuetze r.sagita...@gmx.de
wrote:
But the alignment requirements disallow allocating memory that fills the
wasted address space. I guess even HeapAllocate will use VirtualAlloc as
its back end.
Doesn't this apply only to virtual (user-space)
Vladimir Panteleev vladi...@thecybershadow.net wrote in message
news:op.vfvnf1bvtuz...@89-28-59-99.starnet.md...
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:03:57 +0300, JimBob j...@bob.com wrote:
VirtualAlloc returns chunks that have 'dwAllocationGranularity'
granularity,
which is 64K on every Windows OS I've
Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:03:57 +0300, JimBob j...@bob.com wrote:
VirtualAlloc returns chunks that have 'dwAllocationGranularity'
granularity,
which is 64K on every Windows OS I've used. So allocating a page, 4K,
will
actualy get you 64K.
So using VirtualAlloc as a
== Quote from Rainer Schuetze (r.sagita...@gmx.de)'s article
Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:03:57 +0300, JimBob j...@bob.com wrote:
VirtualAlloc returns chunks that have 'dwAllocationGranularity'
granularity,
which is 64K on every Windows OS I've used. So allocating a
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 01:58:27 +0300, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote:
On the hardware end, 64-bit is now 6-7 years old, which has to be a
standard deviation or two older than the average age at which computers
get replaced.
FWIW, AFAIK data.d is 64-bit ready :D
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 02:20:16 +0300, Vladimir Panteleev
vladi...@thecybershadow.net wrote:
Does this 2 or 3GB limitation only affect 32-bit operating systems? On
my 64-bit Windows, with /LARGEADDRESSAWARE, a simple program can do
close to 64K (65062 for me) 1-byte VirtualAllocs.
Said
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 01:20:07 +0300, Rainer Schuetze r.sagita...@gmx.de
wrote:
There is only 2GB virtual memory available (3GB with some tweaks)
The allocation granularity doesn't affect virtual memory either (at least
according to all Process Explorer indications).
Does this 2 or 3GB
dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:i1o3qj$13b...@digitalmars.com...
Yea, but I wonder how much longer it is going to be before 32-bit is dead
as a
dodo except on things like netbooks. Frankly, it's about time for it to
die,
because dealing w/ address space limitations when
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 02:41:17 +0300, Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a wrote:
I have 1GB. (And I get by just fine.)
The discussion wasn't about physical memory, but address space. Due to the
discussed limitation, you won't be able to fill all of that 1 GB with
small VirtualAlloc'd objects because
Yea, but I wonder how much longer it is going to be before 32-bit is dead as a
dodo except on things like netbooks.
it consumes (leaves holes useable by others) to much memory because of
the allocation strategie - that is also a problem under 64bit
memory-safe by removing deleteContents and fixing
the append clobber issue.
Source and more info here: http://github.com/CyberShadow/data.d
If you see anything that can be improved, feel free to fork the github
repo, or post patches, or just comment on it.
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
12 matches
Mail list logo
