Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!apollo!goykhman_a
From: goykhman_a@apollo.HP.COM (Alex Goykhman)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Fundamental defect of the concept of shared libraries
Message-ID: <51b8197f.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>
Date: 22 May 91 18:37:00 GMT
Sender: root@apollo.HP.COM
Reply-To: goykhman_a@apollo.HP.COM (Alex Goykhman)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Apollo Division - Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 33

In article <213@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta) writes:
>In article <MWM.91May17132439@raven.pa.dec.com>
>	mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes:
>
>>   Even worse, with some architechture, it is impossible to map several virtual
>>   addresses to a physical address. Virtually tagged cache and inverted
>>   page tables are notable examples.
>
>>So some architechtures can't support shared libraries? Well, don't put
>>shared libraries on them.
>
>That's what I am saying.

    I confess, I am not familiar enough with such marvels of computer architecture
    as the fifth generation and tron.  Perhaps, that is why I can not think
    of one that would make it "impossible to map several virtual addresses to a 
    physical address".   Could you name such an architecture?
>
>>Some architechtures can't support demand
>>paged memory, or virtual address spaces, or preemptive scheduling.
>>Does that mean we have to live without them on machines that can
>>support them?  No; it doesn't.
>
>You don't know about hardware enough. Because address translation is time
>consuming, fast cache is always indexed by virtual address. Thesedays,
>virtually indexed cache is quite common.

    So what?  Are you sure you understand the difference between a cache
    and a TLB?

[deleted]
>
>						Masataka Ohta