Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!oodis01!uplherc!utah-gr!utah-cs!defun.utah.edu!shebs
From: shebs%defun.utah.edu.uucp@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley T. Shebs)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: Extending the address space of MIT Cscheme
Message-ID: <5460@utah-cs.UUCP>
Date: 2 May 88 02:37:53 GMT
References: <12394354697.55.MKATZ@A.ISI.EDU>
Sender: news@utah-cs.UUCP
Reply-To: shebs%defun.utah.edu.UUCP@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley T. Shebs)
Organization: PASS Research Group
Lines: 20

In article <12394354697.55.MKATZ@A.ISI.EDU> MKATZ@A.ISI.EDU (Morris Katz) writes:

>In order to effectively use CScheme on modern multiprocessors there is a real
>need to extend its 24 bit address space.

There is the Spice Lisp technique of divvying up the address space into
areas dedicated to each type, in such a way that they still appear to have
tags.  There is also BIBOP or BBOP, in which objects of the same type are
grouped together on a page (as in Franz or Maclisp or Interlisp). Both
techniques would give you a full 32-bit address space, although BBOP may
be more practical for multiprocessing.  However, I suspect that either of
these changes would be far too radical for CScheme, whose coding style and
general design/engineering have given MIT a black eye in the Lisp/Scheme
community...

							stan shebs
							shebs@cs.utah.edu

(Yes, it's a harsh assessment, but does accurately reflect both my own
experiences in trying to understand CScheme, and a number of other people's
feelings as well)