3 ms·
If we’re going to be this petty, then can’t you represent a pointer by a sequence syscalls? So if you were on an OS with infinite memory you could still have un
by zarzavat 2y ago
If we’re going to be this petty, then can’t you represent a pointer by a sequence syscalls? So if you were on an OS with infinite memory you could still have universe-sized pointers into that memory.
- tedunangst 2y agoThere are also upper bounds on the available IO space to a C program. All the file names times the length of a file, etc. is a very large finite limit.
- mort96 2y ago> There are also upper bounds on the available IO space to a C program There isn't really, at least not in principle. You could use a FILE* as a tape and restrict yourself to relative fseeks. But this discussion doesn't concern itself with IO; obviously anything can in principle be made into a Turing machine by strapping enough IO to it.