Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!know!news.cs.indiana.edu!msi.umn.edu!sctc.com!beede
From: beede@sctc.com (Mike Beede)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Adding fire to the segmentation flamefest...
Keywords: segments: do they really suck?
Message-ID: <1991Apr18.163123.21963@sctc.com>
Date: 18 Apr 91 16:31:23 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: SCTC
Lines: 23

> For example, consider the proposal that was made in a recent message on this
> topic, for a 32 bit segment and 32 bit address.  If that was implemented in
> the memory system (so that the cpu goes "duhh, here is a 64 bit address,
> gimme my memory, dude!") then you get the best of both worlds; you can treat
> your memory as a 64 bit address space, or you can have up to 2**32 segments
> 2**32 bytes long, or you can have segments >2**32 bytes long that just happen
> to be set up as 2 or more contiguous segments by the OS.

What about two processes that want to share a segment containing
in-segment pointers?  Would be pretty nice if the segments didn't have
to be mapped at the same location for both processes, wouldn't it?  Of
course, we can just use PL/I BASED types and forget about it . . . .
Nah. 

This seems like a natural kind of thing to do.

	Mike Beede

-- 
Mike Beede         SCTC
beede@sctc.com     1210 W. County Rd E, Suite 100           
			Arden Hills, MN  55112
                         (612) 482-7420