Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU!gl8f
From: gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st.tech
Subject: Re: 1.44M 3.5 disks  //  floppies as swap space
Message-ID: <1990Sep10.195716.402@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 10 Sep 90 19:57:16 GMT
References: <1407@wet.UUCP> <1990Sep10.105324.26957@agate.berkeley.edu> <10562@life.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: news@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia
Lines: 19

In article <10562@life.ai.mit.edu> entropy@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (enthalpy) writes:

>No!  You would still have to handle the case where someone actually
>tries to _access_ data that has been paged out (you mean you have to
>be able to read it back??).  This entails first of all being able to
>recognize an interrupt caused by accessing memory that was paged out
>(this part might be possible) but after paging that data back in, you
>have to be able to continue from the interrupt as if nothing had ever
>happened.

You are describing transparent virtual memory. There are other kinds,
and perhaps the original poster is willing to live with virtual memory
where he is required to explicitly ask for the memory, and release it
when he's done. The Mac does this, and Windows 286 does this.


--
"Perhaps I'm commenting a bit cynically, but I think I'm qualified to."
                                              - Dan Bernstein