 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
would there be any conceivable problem with changing the maximum number of blob
components to sizeof(unsigned int)?
I mean, aside from type mismatch warnings pouring from every orifice when you
compiled unless you went through and changed the types on all the counters as
well...
Honestly, though, 1M seems a little low...
Regards,
A.D.B.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 20.10.2012 00:08, schrieb Anthony D. Baye:
> would there be any conceivable problem with changing the maximum number of blob
> components to sizeof(unsigned int)?
You probably mean INT_MAX.
> I mean, aside from type mismatch warnings pouring from every orifice when you
> compiled unless you went through and changed the types on all the counters as
> well...
That. A thorough review of the blob code would be needed to determine
the possible maximum value.
There's at least on statement suggesting that MAX_BLOB_COMPONENTS should
be lower than INT_MAX/7.
Other code suggests that MAX_BLOB_COMPONENTS should be lower than any of
the following expressions:
SIZE_MAX/(7*sizeof(double))
SIZE_MAX/(2*sizeof(BSPHERE_TREE))
SIZE_MAX/sizeof(Blob_Interval_Struct)
And that's just what a superficial review reveals.
> Honestly, though, 1M seems a little low...
640k should be enough for everybody...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>
> 640k should be enough for everybody...
LOL.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-10-2012 11:54, clipka wrote:
> 640k should be enough for everybody...
>
You are too good, sir :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
