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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,124905131f269735 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-09-27 06:15:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: gnat and heap size Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 09:07:14 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9ov8a4$b71$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <1001442590.557811@news.drenet.dnd.ca> <%26s7.4950$ev2.8194@www.newsranger.com> <9oqs5k$jjq$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9osjpt$a5l$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9osq5a$crn$1@nh.pace.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1001596036 11489 136.170.200.133 (27 Sep 2001 13:07:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Sep 2001 13:07:16 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13430 Date: 2001-09-27T13:07:16+00:00 List-Id: Sure. But assuming that if you've got an ability to address 2**64 of anything (bytes, sectors, whatever) then there must be something there physically you want to retrieve. If its bytes, then you'd need something storing the binary states of the bits. Presuming that you had a means of detecting some sort of state change in a single atom, then you'd need 2**64 * 8 (or whatever your byte size is, for those about to observe that a byte need not be 8 bits) atoms. That might start approaching something a little too big to get into a laptop. :-) I wouldn't mind having a 64 bit address - it would allow you to dedicate whole banks of the address space to various purposes - but actually having 2*64 bytes available to address may be just a wee bit beyond current technology. I like holographic memory and remember reading about research on such devices several years ago. I'm wondering why it never made it out of the lab? Too expensive? Too hard to produce? Too unreliable? Something must have got in its way to the market because its been a long time since I heard tell of the devices working in labs and I don't see any on the shelves at CompUSA... Hmmmmm..... MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Pascal Obry" wrote in message news:ulmj1fyac.fsf@wanadoo.fr... > > "Marin David Condic" writes: > > > I doubt that it would be practically possible to construct a disk big > > enough to hold 2**64 bytes of data as a result. :-) > > Well well... Somebody said that only 3 or 4 ENIAC would be needed in the > world because it was so powerful... >