From: "Campbell, Rolf [SKY:1U32:EXCH]" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: large arrays -- newbie question Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:26:21 -0400 Organization: Nortel Networks Lines: 23 Message-ID: <3777B03C.F70D8D73@americasm01.nt.com> References: <19990628120046 DOT 27702 DOT 00002114 AT ngol08 DOT aol DOT com> <7l8972$ose AT dfw-ixnews5 DOT ix DOT netcom DOT com> NNTP-Posting-Host: bmerhc00.ca.nortel.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (X11; I; HP-UX B.10.20 9000/712) X-Accept-Language: en To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Marp wrote: > > char large_ish_matrix [720] [486] > Why not just try it and find out :) I don't see any reason why you shouldn't > be able to use an array this large. However, whenever I need more memory > than just a few bytes, I use a pointer and allocate the memory from the heap > instead. > In C++ that would mean using the new and delete operators or in C the > functions malloc and free. You should be able to use an array that large if > you prefer to do it this way. The only problem he might have is, if he declares it local, he might blow the stack. Also, if he declares it global, funny things can happen (I've had problems declaring large global arrays). Either way, it's best to use malloc/new to allocate big chunks of memory (more than a few k). Also, you may find it difficult to make a mutidimensional array using new/malloc. -- -Rolf Campbell (39)3-6318