From: "Michel Chassey" <michelc AT primus DOT ca>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References: <200007162005 DOT QAA17661 AT websmtp1 DOT bellsouth DOT bigfoot DOT com>
Subject: Re: Thanks Damian and "Let's Go Canes!"
Lines: 37
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Message-ID: <GEFc5.1203$r3.7005@news2.tor.primus.ca>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:25:16 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.167.12.89
X-Complaints-To: news AT primus DOT ca
X-Trace: news2.tor.primus.ca 963847846 209.167.12.89 (Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:30:46 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:30:46 EDT
Organization: Primus Canada
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

You answered many questions.

Michel Chassey
ICQ # 34801616
********************
Lets Go Canes! a écrit dans le message
<200007162005 DOT QAA17661 AT websmtp1 DOT bellsouth DOT bigfoot DOT com>...
>Hi.
>
>At Sat, 15 Jul 2000 18:06:38 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>     I use many global arrays in my program and I am puzzled because the
>>binary size
>>increase does not reflect sizeof ( _new_array).
>>As an example, adding : unsigned long long    _BITMAP [ 64 ];  (sizeof is
>>512),
>>produces a binary size increase of only  about 53 bytes. This last number
>>varies from
>>49 to 53.
>
>If the array is not initialized as part of its
>declaration, most systems don't actually put the entire
>array in the executable.  Instead, it puts information
>that tells the OS that the program needs an array of
>size "n".  So regardless of the size of the array, you
>only get the 49-53 bytes that contain the information
>on the array.
>
>Depending on the OS, you may see the same type of behavior if the array is
initialized to all zero, or maybe even all the same value (i.e., all "9"s or
>something).
>
>
>---------------
>Let's Go Canes!