Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net>
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: <s6u8ejt36rgae92tauhvaki5hvob4t6ekr@4ax.com>
References: <vb9r4g$2o1f$1@gal.iecc.com> <memo.20240904163805.19028V@jgd.cix.co.uk> <vbch08$1u12$1@gal.iecc.com> <vbioi5$1j26j$15@dont-email.me> <b51fd28e5d0eeeebf2844f875741beca@www.novabbs.org> <vbm610$2aolh$2@dont-email.me> <873530da43db3e0861f42ffa00aa68dd@www.novabbs.org> <vbokvu$2ptgq$1@dont-email.me> <29efc47c7a95dc8d0c1ed07c91b656c5@www.novabbs.org> <vbta24$3s352$3@dont-email.me> <vbtfs8$3sl3q$2@dont-email.me>
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
<lars@beagle-ears.com> 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.