Re: Proposed addition of malloc_size_np()

In message <20060328105833.GE87799@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Reilly writes:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:39:06PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Nope, not even close.

What Recursiv did was novel in that the objects lived in hardware
and microcode, there were no way to overrun an array, because you
simply couldn't index it outside it's bounds. Not even in the
operating system.

How is that different from all of the preceding segmented
machines like (to quote your .sig) the Z8001+MMU?

On segmented architectures, all the way back, you put multiple
objects in one segment.

The traditional UNIX way had two or three segments, all of the code
in one and all of the data (+/- the stack) in another.

What Rekursiv did was to put each single variable or object
in its own segment.

int i;
int j;

would take two objects (or segments if you like).

This is not merely segmentation, this is object oriented memory.

--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@xxxxxxxxxxx | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages