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