Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!otter.hpl.hp.com!hpltoad!cdollin!kers From: kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Adding fire to the segmentation flamefest... Message-ID: Date: 5 Apr 91 08:17:49 GMT References: <9234@lkbreth.foretune.co.jp> <45180@super.ORG> Sender: news@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Usenet News Administrator) Distribution: comp Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK. Lines: 19 In-Reply-To: rminnich@super.ORG's message of 4 Apr 91 18:33:15 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: cdollin.hpl.hp.com Ronald G Minnich writes: [Quotes Robert Woodhead, then continues] 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? If it means I can't construct code at run-time and execute it, yes, I think this sort of segmentation is a bad idea. [This doesn't mean that I'm against the idea of segmentation, simply that segmentation at that coarse a level seems counterproductive. Just Because the architect doesn't want to dynamically generate code desn't mean that it's a Bad Thing. The 80-20 rule shouldn't be interpreted as ``make 80% of the jobs easy at the cost of making the other 20% impossible''.] -- Regards, Kers 24059 | "You're better off not dreaming of the things to come; Caravan: | Dreams are always ending far too soon."