Re: matrix sizes

[Paul Kienzle]

Darrick,

I see from the malloc manpage that it accepts size_t type, which
presumably means the underlying system can allocate hunks
greater than 2Gb.

So then it is simply a matter of converting all array size and index
variables everywhere in liboctave and liboctinterp to use
octave_size_t, defined as octave_uint64 for your purposes.
Simple enough, but time consuming.

Next you will need to go through libcruft and make sure all the
supporting libraries can handle size_t for array sizes and
indices.  Others have done this in the past for atlas and fftw
which are the most important ones.

This should give you a working system with 53-bit indexing
which should last you a little bit longer.

Pushing it to full 64-bit indexing will require fiddling with the
range type and completing arithmetic ops on uint64.  I don't
know what the compatibility implications are of such a
change.

- Paul

On Sep 15, 2004, at 8:31 PM, Darrick Edward Chang wrote:

> Sorry for this follow-up, but in response to some emails I have already
> gotten, perhaps I should clarify the conditions I am working under.  I 
> am
> running octave 2.1.57 on a server with 20GB of RAM.  Thus I can use
> the zeros command to create multiple matrices of size 16000 x 16000, 
> for
> example, with no problem.
> Trying to create a single matrix of size 16384 x 16384, however, or a
> complex matrix of size 16384 x 8192, is where octave spits out the 
> error
> messages that I noted in my previous message.



-------------------------------------------------------------
Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL.

Octave's home on the web:  http://www.octave.org
How to fund new projects:  http://www.octave.org/funding.html
Subscription information:  http://www.octave.org/archive.html
-------------------------------------------------------------