Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!super!rminnich
From: rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Adding fire to the segmentation flamefest...
Keywords: segments suck
Message-ID: <45180@super.ORG>
Date: 4 Apr 91 18:33:15 GMT
References: <9234@lkbreth.foretune.co.jp>
Sender: news@super.ORG
Distribution: comp
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center, Bowie, Md.
Lines: 14

In article <9234@lkbreth.foretune.co.jp> trebor@lkbreth.foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) writes:
>I'm firmly of the opinion that segments suck bigtime [translation for
>those with PHd's : "segmented architectures are a solution to a problem
>that no longer exists, and arguably, never did"]
If you don't understand why arguing for or against segmentation 
as a way of grouping pieces of an address space is 
UNRELATED to the question of segmented architectures, then 
you are missing the point. 
On, e.g,  V6 Unix, there were three segments for split I/D processes: 
stack, data, and code. Do you think this sort of segmentation was a bad idea? 
Even the most basic Unix systems use segmentation, whether or not
the architecture they run on is a segmented architecture. Segments
are a way of grouping things. I can't see that going away. 
ron