Re: 80286 protected mode

On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:38:40 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 14/10/2024 21:02, MitchAlsup1 wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 15:04:28 +0000, David Brown wrote:
 

On 13/10/2024 17:45, Anton Ertl wrote: 

 

I do think it would be convenient if there were a fully standard
way to compare independent pointers (other than just for
equality).  Rarely needing something does not mean /never/ needing
it. 

 
OK, take a segmented memory model with 16-bit pointers and a 24-bit
virtual address space. How do you actually compare to segmented
pointers ?? 

 
 
void * p = ...
void * q = ...
 
uintptr_t pu = (uintptr_t) p;
uintptr_t qu = (uintptr_t) q;
 
if (pu > qu) {
...
} else if (pu < qu) {
...
} else {
...
}
 
 
If your comparison needs to actually match up with the real virtual
addresses, then this will not work.  But does that actually matter?
 
Think about using this comparison for memmove().
 
Consider where these pointers come from.  Maybe they are pointers to
statically allocated data.  Then you would expect the segment to be
the same in each case, and the uintptr_t comparison will be fine for
memmove().  Maybe they come from malloc() and are in different
segments. Then the comparison here might not give the same result as
a full virtual address comparison - but that does not matter.  If the
pointers came from different mallocs, they could not overlap and
memmove() can run either direction.
 
The same applies to other uses, such as indexing in a binary search
tree or a hash map - the comparison above will be correct when it
matters.
 
 
 

It's all fine for as long as there are no objects bigger than 64KB.
But with 16MB of virtual memory and with several* MB of physical memory
one does want objects that are bigger than 64KB!

---
* https://theretroweb.com/motherboards/s/compaq-deskpro-286e-p-n-001226