Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ft3757$11cb$1@digitalmars.com...
>> "Spacen Jasset" <spacen@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:ft35ik$q7g$1@digitalmars.com...
>>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>> Brian Hay wrote:
>>>>> Newbie Q:
>>>>>
>>>>> During compilation I'm getting the error: "array dimension overflow" but it doesn't provide any information as to where (module and line number) the error might be, so I'm at a loss. Other errors seem to provide such information.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any ideas?
>>>> I think there's a limit of 16K for the size of static arrays.
>>>> Do you have any really big static arrays?
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, the compiler should generate a line number for that.  Not providing one is a bug.
>>>>
>>>> --bb
>>> 16k Seems shockingly low. Is there documentation on this. Even old Dos compilers for C support close to 64k indexes.
> 
> Son of a.
> 
> Bill made a typo, the max is 16MB.  While Walter says that this is because "any larger array should really be allocated at runtime and not in the static data segment", I think it's really because OPTLINK crashes if you have something larger than 16MB in the static data segment.
> 
> 9_9 
> 
> 
16Mb is more like it. Doubtless this limit will go away one day when the need becomes more pressing. Nothing to worry about too much... moving on. :-)