Newsgroups: comp.arch Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Segmented Architectures ( formerly Re: 48-bit computers) Message-ID: <1PGAOP7@xds13.ferranti.com> Organization: Xenix Support, FICC References: <1360009@aspen.IAG.HP.COM> Date: Wed, 3 Apr 91 17:45:20 GMT In article <1360009@aspen.IAG.HP.COM>, huck@aspen.IAG.HP.COM (Jerry Huck) writes: > So for HP, segmentation was not a trade-off against flat addressing, > but rather: is it useful to extend beyond the maximum flat addressing > you can support in your general register file? This is the exact same trade-off that Intel made in the 8086, just 10 years or so down the road. It gives you a short-term paper advantage, but once things get to the point where you really need those addressing bits people will be using your name in vain. > I think most of the arguments against segmentation assume you give up > some flat addressing to get it. That's not necessary. But that's what you just described: you only have 32 bits of flat address space in a 48 bit machine. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"