Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!udel!rminnich From: rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Is the Intel memory model safe from NO-ONE ?!? Message-ID: <2448@louie.udel.EDU> Date: 9 May 88 15:21:38 GMT References: <1806@obiwan.mips.COM> <2904@omepd> <353@cf-cm.UUCP> <2430@louie.udel.EDU> <52426@sun.uucp> Reply-To: rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich) Organization: University of Delaware Lines: 19 In article <52426@sun.uucp> guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) writes: >Except that programs that duplicate that stuff in C (or whatever) code tend to >do something useful when if the subscript is out of range. For a somewhat >trivial example, consider a program that reads a large array of numbers from a >file, and then prompts the user for an array index and prints out the element >of the array selected by that index. i guess if you assume all these things are interactive, that is ok. What about all the daemons that run in background and screw up? I would like something, anything, better than a core file. Inferring just what happened and where is often impossible. On the Burroughs I got a stack trace *when the error happened*, not 15 hours after an index went awry and as a side-effect clobbered something else, which some time later caused a core dump. In addition, i got symbolic names and a real good summary of just what went wrong. 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? -- ron (rminnich@udel.edu)