Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!ll-xn!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!jk3k+
From: jk3k+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joe Keane)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Is the Intel memory model safe from NO-ONE ?!?
Message-ID: <4WVViEy00ja6A1u2N=@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 9 May 88 20:50:24 GMT
References: <1806@obiwan.mips.COM> <2904@omepd> <353@cf-cm.UUCP> <2430@louie.udel.EDU> <52426@sun.uucp>,
	<2448@louie.udel.EDU>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 10
In-Reply-To: <2448@louie.udel.EDU>


> In thinking about it, i guess i am arguing for more than two address spaces
> per program. Right now we have code and data. Is there so much wrong with
> having more than one data space?
This is what we really need, a number of separate areas in a flat address
space.  If you define segmentation as `addresses have a segment part and an
offset part', it's really inferior to a flat address space; without
different-sized segments, you waste address space.  Of course, just like Intel
did segmentation badly, Unix did flat address spaces badly.  The idea of three
segments is outdated.

--Joe