Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!actrix!templar!jbickers
From: jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: 680x0 vs 80x86
Message-ID: <4818.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz>
Date: 26 Jun 91 07:14:00 GMT
References: <92@ryptyde.UUCP> <4671.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz> <1154@stewart.UUCP>
Organization: TAP, NZAmigaUG.
Lines: 21

Quoted from <1154@stewart.UUCP> by jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel):
> jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes:

> >    It's usually because if you have a split cache you break programs
> >    that use self-modifying code.

> Doubtful, John, since every OS in existence treats code as data when it
> loads it into memory for execution.

    I believe you'll find that these OS's have functions to "flush" the
    various caches, to keep things in sync. Or rely on overflowing the
    cache...

    I also believe that loading programs is a very minor proportion of
    the total usage RAM gets on a typical machine, so it's a minor loss
    in efficiency.

> | JERRY J. SHEKHEL  | POLYGEN CORPORATION  | When I was young, I had to walk |
--
*** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG.        jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz ***
***         "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo.          ***