On 8/24/2016 3:35 AM, Tomer Filiba wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 August 2016 at 09:38:43 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
2) Many times I need memory-contiguity, e.g., several big arrays inside a
struct, which is dumped to disk/sent over network. I can't use pointers there.
I don't know why pointers cannot be used. Can you show the struct definition
you're using?
Our configuration is a struct of several static hash tables (allocated in-place,
not via GC). So the entire configuration is contiguous is memory, which allows
us to dump/load/send it easily.
When we increase the capacity of these tables we run into these pain-in-the-ass
16MB limits. So although the struct itself is over 16MB, no single table can
cross several thousand entries, as the static arrays it uses internally would
overflow that boundary.
The configuration itself may very well be dynamically allocated (e.g., not a
global variable) but that won't solve anything as the restriction is on the
*type* of the array.
If I understand you correctly, removing the size limitation on the type will
resolve the issue for you? Even though allocating static data of such a size
will still not be allowed?
BTW, given globals in C++:
int a[100];
float b[200];
long c;
there actually is no guarantee that they are allocated contiguously, and indeed
I've run into bugs in my code because I had relied on that. They'd have to be
put into a struct to get a guarantee.
