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)