From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	RATWARE_MS_HASH,RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9a586954b11ae008
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Nick Roberts" <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: Overflows (lisp fixnum-bignum conversion)
Date: 1997/04/06
Message-ID: <01bc42b0$a88691c0$90f482c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 231110991
References: <1997Apr2.202514.1843@nosc.mil> <E82sM5.Gwv@world.std.com>
 <Pine.SUN.3.96.970405054237.22894A-100000@eskimo.com>
 <E874Gq.91M@world.std.com>
Organization: UUNet PIPEX server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNet PIPEX)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>




Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote in article 
> I won't complain if I can't allocate an array bigger than 2**32 bytes on
> a machine that has a 32-bit address space.  That's a lot different from
> telling me I can't allocate a 1000-bit integer on such a machine.


In ten years time we'll all have 64-bit machines with hundreds of Gb of RAM
(as well as content-addressed memory etc.) and look back at 32-bit
addressing as ludicrously small. "How ever did we manage with such tiny
amounts of memory?" we will ask each other ;-)

Nick.