Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!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: <45203@super.ORG>
Date: 5 Apr 91 17:24:09 GMT
References: <9234@lkbreth.foretune.co.jp> <45180@super.ORG> <9244@lkbreth.foretune.co.jp>
Sender: news@super.ORG
Distribution: comp
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center, Bowie, Md.
Lines: 20

In article <9244@lkbreth.foretune.co.jp> trebor@lkbreth.foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) writes:
>Ron, the point is not whether segments can be useful -- they can.  The
>point is that quite often they can be a royal pain in the nether regions,
>and thus, they should not be imposed by the hardware.
>"Objectionable segmentation" is that imposed by the hardware (eg:INTEL).
>"Good segmentation" is that imposed by the software (OS) (eg:virtual memory).

So we agree. My main objection was to the conclusion that
some people are drawing: 
"I had a bad time with Intel chips therefore segmentation is bad"
or
"The number line is continuous so segmentation is bad"
Sloppy thinking on their part. 

Fact is, segmentation is a fact of life NOW in our operating systems
whether the hardware supports it or not. And maybe the hardware should not.
But concluding from limited experience with one processor family that 
a whole idea is bad strikes me as shortsighted (and I don't mean you).

ron