by glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
May 31, 2007 at 01:48 PM
Roedy Green wrote:
> On 1 Mar 2007 13:24:13 -0800, "aloha.kakuikanu"
> <aloha.kakuikanu@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
>>Perhaps I'm missing some magic JVM parameter setting? Aren't 16 bit
>>integers relics of the past century?
> Nope. Using 32 bit addressing would double the size of a class file.
> It is rare to blow the limit unless you are mechanically generating
> code.
If you used an escape or prefix code for larger addresses it wouldn't
double the size. I believe that might have been part of the
design, but was never (as far as I know) implemented. Yes, it is
exactly mechanically generated code that needs this.
(The IBM z/OS system only allows code below the 2GB bar. There
has been discussion on the need for this restriction, but again
it is only machine generated code that is likely to cause problems.)
-- glen
