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 The idea of three segments is outdated.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