David Korn wrote: > > > > > > In ksh93n (released in 2002), the indexed array size was changed to > > > 67,108,863 > > . > > > although it was incorrectly documented as 16Megs. > > > > Just curious: Why is there a limit ? > > At this point not a very good reason. The shell will allocate at least > n*sizeof(void*) bytes for an array whose larges element is n. > By having a limit, the shel can catch erroneous allocation sizes > and in some cases prevent the process from running out of memory.
Isn't this already covered by "ulimit"&co. ? Or do you mean "user-specified erroneous values" which may cause "runaway" allocations ? ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
