From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Subject: Re: 40 MB buffer
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References: <F135Nbo9BYoqhF9cQoN0001a3e5 AT hotmail DOT com> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 21 DOT 0212130820060 DOT 17931-100000 AT neptune DOT calstatela DOT edu>
User-Agent: tin/1.4.4-20000803 ("Vet for the Insane") (UNIX) (NetBSD/1.5_BETA (alpha))
Message-ID: <1039811212.51715@queeg.ludd.luth.se>
Cache-Post-Path: queeg.ludd.luth.se!unknown AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se
X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b5 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
Date: 13 Dec 2002 20:26:52 GMT
Lines: 13
NNTP-Posting-Host: queeg.ludd.luth.se
X-Trace: 1039811212 news.luth.se 59762 130.240.16.109
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Louis P. Santillan <lsantil AT calstatela DOT edu> wrote:
: In what context is this code running?  If the data declaration is outside
: of a function (global space), then it should be allocated correctly but
: you'll also end up with a 40MB+ EXE file.  If you have this code contained

No. It should go into the bss. At least it did when I checked these
things some months ago. I use gcc 2.95.x. The only one that really
created big .EXE images was if I initialised the array (even with 0).


Right,

						MartinS