RE: size too large for range of Octave's index type

[Tim Rueth]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Judd Storrs [mailto:address@hidden 
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 6:04 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: Jaroslav Hajek; address@hidden
> Subject: Re: size too large for range of Octave's index type
> 
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Tim Rueth <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Hm-mm.  But the memory requirement for all of my vars is 
> only 1.41GB 
> > (< 2GB) with fewer than 2e9 elements total, but I'm still 
> getting the 
> > error.  So I'm still confused why I'm getting the error.
> 
> If you run a whos, doesn't that give you information about 
> matrices that were successfully created, not the ones that failed?
> 
> I believe Windows limits all 32-bit processes to 2GB total. 
> At least that's what we concluded here. Even on a 64-bit 
> Windows, if the process (i.e. octave) is 32-bit you can only 
> use up to 2GB total. My understanding is you'll have to 
> compile a 64-bit octave to access more memory. I found this 
> link when trying to verify my memory of this
> issue:
> 
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx
> 
> 
> --judd
> 

Thanks Judd.  I looked at the link you provided, and it looks like 32-bit
Windows7 Ultimate has a 4GB physical memory limit and only a 2GB virtual
address limit (I'd think these would be opposite), and 192GB physical for
64-bit.  Hard to believe I'm somehow hitting the 2/4GB limit, but I guess I
need to go back to the whos report and see what, if anything, is missing
when I get the error, even though it shows me only using 1.41GB.

Do you know if there are any plans to compile a 64-bit version of Octave for
Windows?

Thanks,

--Tim