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)