wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (08/21/90)
> Second, I think that the requirement for separate dictionary and code > spaces is overly restrictive and unnecessary. It can be awfully handy for several environments: a) ROM/RAM systems. b) "Harvard architectures" with separate code and data storage c) Turnkey applications where you may want to selectively remove headers. d) Brain-damaged segmented architectures like the one that F-PC has to run on. Mitch
dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips) (08/24/90)
In <9008230615.AA28602@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM writes: > > Second, I think that the requirement for separate dictionary and code > > spaces is overly restrictive and unnecessary. > > It can be awfully handy for several environments: > > a) ROM/RAM systems. > b) "Harvard architectures" with separate code and data storage > c) Turnkey applications where you may want to selectively remove > headers. > d) Brain-damaged segmented architectures like the one that F-PC > has to run on. I agree with your points. What I was trying to say is that a separate dictionary should not be *required*. As many others have pointed out, the abstraction that the dictionary provides is to map words into code "objects". -Doug --- Preferred: ( dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us OR ...!{sei,pitt}!willett!dwp ) Daily: ...!{uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp [last resort: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu] --- Preferred: ( dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us OR ...!{sei,pitt}!willett!dwp ) Daily: ...!{uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp [last resort: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu]