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: <2430@louie.udel.EDU> Date: 8 May 88 16:57:23 GMT References: <1806@obiwan.mips.COM> <2904@omepd> <353@cf-cm.UUCP> <22830abd:a11@snark.UUCP> <52404@sun.uucp> Reply-To: rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich) Organization: University of Delaware Lines: 19 In article <52404@sun.uucp> guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) writes: >No, segmentation doesn't imply memory protection. You could imagine a system >with segments that permits you to read and write from any address in the >segment, whether valid or not (i.e., one that doesn't even do bounds >checking). Hence my point about segmentation done right. The later Burroughs machines really did things pretty well; i still miss the address checking every time i try to debug some broken C code. Fact is, if i have an array of something, i want it to be in its own legal region, and i want it to be bounds-checked when i mess with it. Before any one goes off the handle about cost, remember the cost of all those programs that duplicate this stuff in C code. Segmentation, despite having been associated with some pretty unpleasant architectures in the last few years (8086,80286) is not in itself such a bad thing. I am getting to the point where I am willing to pay a performance penalty if the plagued things would just run right ... -- ron (rminnich@udel.edu)