Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site eneevax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!eneevax!ravi From: ravi@eneevax.UUCP (Ravi Kulkarni) Newsgroups: net.arch,net.micro.16k,net.micro.68k Subject: Re: 24 bit vs. 32 bit address space Message-ID: <251@eneevax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 2-Mar-85 11:58:10 EST Article-I.D.: eneevax.251 Posted: Sat Mar 2 11:58:10 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 4-Mar-85 06:53:59 EST References: <983@watdcsu.UUCP> <2385@nsc.UUCP> <730@amdcad.UUCP> <2393@nsc.UUCP> <295@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <73@daisy.UUCP> <540@rlgvax.UUCP> Organization: U of Maryland, EE Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 14 Xref: watmath net.arch:911 net.micro.16k:241 net.micro.68k:627 I am getting a little confused. It seems that we are talking about 2 different things here, real addressing space and virtual addressing space. I think the complaint was the limitation of 16 Mbytes of virtual memory on the 320xx series not the limitation of real available physical memory. In fact with an mmu the 320xx series has 32 Mbytes of real memory although the virtual process size is still 16 Mbytes. One question I had is does unix support a scattered virtual space. I suppose it can be done if your program is smart enough to allocate space itself. But is the loader capable of initializing a scattered space without trying to allocate swap space for the entire range? -- ARPA: eneevax!ravi@maryland UUCP: [seismo,allegra]!umcp-cs!eneevax!ravi