Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: George Neuner Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Address bits again, Article on new mainframe use Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 13:47:01 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <873530da43db3e0861f42ffa00aa68dd@www.novabbs.org> <29efc47c7a95dc8d0c1ed07c91b656c5@www.novabbs.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1933539"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="h5eMH71iFfocGZucc+SnA0y5I+72/ecoTCcIjMd3Uww"; User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 2084 Lines: 21 On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 18:24:24 -0700, Lars Poulsen wrote: >On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 21:34:25 +0000, MitchAlsup1 wrote: >>> I am not a fan of segmentation ... > >On 9/11/2024 4:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> Big segments versus small segments are quite different things. > >Segments do different things. The aspect of segments that I liked in the >80286 was that they provided an excewllent mechanism for array bounds >checking. I would have loved having that option within a linear, paged >address space. But the languages in wide use at the time did not support >that. One (of many) problem with 286 segments was that there simply were not enough available to be really useful. You need enough for every object in the program. Intel had the opportunity to do segmentation much better with the 386, but they fumbled it badly: too slow - and no more segments possible than with 286.