Need to Allocate more space than size_t

[ramasubramanian.rahul]

hi folks
i have a peculiar problem. i have to allocate more than size_t
consequtive bytes on a system . after i do a malloc .. i am unable to
do a realloc because it takes size_t as a new size and not as an
incremental size..
can you tell me which library/system call to use..
Plz consider that all the physical hardware req for such an operation
is available... i know this sounds crazy... but just help me out here
....
Thanks in Advance
Rahul

[sam_cit]

i have a peculiar problem. i have to allocate more than size_t
consequtive bytes on a system . after i do a malloc .. i am unable to

consequtive bytes and dynamic allocation ???

[mark_bluemel]

ra************* ******@gmail.co m wrote:

hi folks
i have a peculiar problem. i have to allocate more than size_t
consequtive bytes on a system . after i do a malloc .. i am unable to
do a realloc because it takes size_t as a new size and not as an
incremental size..
can you tell me which library/system call to use..

This is probably wandering into "Off-topic for comp.lang.c" - there's
no way in the standard language.

You'd have to delve into the O/S to do this, if it is possible at all.
On un*x-like systems the "brk()" or "sbrk()" calls are probably
relevant, or the memory-mapping calls (mmap()) but...

Are you actually able to deal with more memory than size_t can denote?
You will be limited, one way or another by issues such as
addressability. . If you are working on a 32-bit O/S, then you cannot
(AFAIK) have more than 4Gb of address space for a process, for example.

Plz consider that all the physical hardware req for such an operation
is available...

But if the O/S can't access more than size_t can denote, that's no help
at all..

i know this sounds crazy... but just help me out here

You probably need to give us more information, but we'll probably point
you at a newsgroup relating to your platform...

[Richard Bos]

"ra************ *******@gmail.c om" <ra************ *******@gmail.c om>
wrote:

i have a peculiar problem. i have to allocate more than size_t
consequtive bytes on a system . after i do a malloc .. i am unable to
do a realloc because it takes size_t as a new size and not as an
incremental size..
can you tell me which library/system call to use..

There isn't any. If you need more memory than can be specified in a
size_t, ISO C gives you no way to do so. Ideally, this shouldn't even be
possible; your implementation should make size_t large enough to cater
for every possible memory block size.

Richard

[santosh]

ra************* ******@gmail.co m wrote:

hi folks
i have a peculiar problem. i have to allocate more than size_t
consequtive bytes on a system . after i do a malloc .. i am unable to
do a realloc because it takes size_t as a new size and not as an
incremental size..
can you tell me which library/system call to use..
Plz consider that all the physical hardware req for such an operation
is available... i know this sounds crazy... but just help me out here
...

This is not possible using strictly standard C. The type size_t is
specifically meant to store the sizes of objects in a C program and it
should be possible to contain within a size_t object, the size of the
largest possible object guaranteed under standard C.

Generally, one would expect size_t to be equivalent to the largest
unsigned type, under most implementations , though you cannot assume
this. For example, on my implementation here, size_t is a typedef for
unsigned int, even though unsigned long long int, a much larger
unsigned type, is also available.

Anyway, returning to your question, the short answer is that you'll
have to use implementation specific extensions or, more likely, OS
specific system calls and their corresponding types. Asking in a group
for your system might get more helpful responses.

[santosh]

sa*****@yahoo.c o.in wrote:

i have a peculiar problem. i have to allocate more than size_t
consequtive bytes on a system . after i do a malloc .. i am unable to

consequtive bytes and dynamic allocation ???

Why not? As far as a conforming C program is concerned, the component
bytes of a single dynamically allocated object are consecutive, though
that may not be the case as far as the layout of the object on physical
memory is concerned.

[sam_cit]

Why not? As far as a conforming C program is concerned, the component

bytes of a single dynamically allocated object are consecutive, though
that may not be the case as far as the layout of the object on physical
memory is concerned.

I have never seen a requirement to allocate memory dynamically and
to expect that to be in consecutive locations... may be the OP should
explain the actual reason as to why he needs this, if he can...

[santosh]

sa*****@yahoo.c o.in wrote:

>Why not? As far as a conforming C program is concerned, the component

bytes of a single dynamically allocated object are consecutive, though
that may not be the case as far as the layout of the object on physical
memory is concerned.

I have never seen a requirement to allocate memory dynamically and
to expect that to be in consecutive locations... may be the OP should
explain the actual reason as to why he needs this, if he can...

The OP seems to be talking about resizing, (enlarging), the allocation
for a single object with a call to realloc(). The bytes of a single
dynamically allocated object in C are consecutive to the program.

If you're talking about the layout of two or more dynamic objects then
yes, they need not be consecutive.

[Stephen Sprunk]

<ra************ *******@gmail.c omwrote in message
news:11******** *************@m 73g2000cwd.goog legroups.com...

hi folks
i have a peculiar problem. i have to allocate more than size_t
consequtive bytes on a system . after i do a malloc .. i am unable to
do a realloc because it takes size_t as a new size and not as an
incremental size..
can you tell me which library/system call to use..

size_t is able to hold the size of the largest object you can allocate
with malloc() or realloc() by definition. That means that, within the
realm of Standard C, there is no way to allocate an object larger than
SIZE_MAX.

Your OS may have mechanisms to allocate larger objects; you'll need to
ask about those in an OS-specific newsgroup.

Plz consider that all the physical hardware req for such an operation
is available... i know this sounds crazy... but just help me out here

Note that any sane implementation will define size_t such that it can
handle anything the system is capable of. It is unlikely that your OS
does, in fact, have something better, because that's what the C
implementors would have used if it were available.

For example, on x86 with PAE, your machine may have 36 bits of physical
memory, but it's impossible to access more than 32 bits of address space
from a single program, so size_t will be 32 bits. Ditto for an 32-bit
program running inside a 64-bit OS; the OS can hand out a different 4GB
address space to each program, but no single program can use more than
4GB on its own. A 64-bit program on the same OS would have a 64-bit
size_t.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[mark_bluemel]

ra************* ******@gmail.co m wrote:

hi folks
i have a peculiar problem. i have to allocate more than size_t
consequtive bytes on a system . after i do a malloc .. i am unable to
do a realloc because it takes size_t as a new size and not as an
incremental size..

As I and others have pointed out, you can't do this in Standard C and
it's very likely that you can't do it using non-standard techniques
either.

Why not describe what you are trying to achieve with this huge memory
allocation and let us suggest alternative ways of meeting your goal?