Re: 80286 protected mode

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c arch 
Sujet : Re: 80286 protected mode
De : david.brown (at) *nospam* hesbynett.no (David Brown)
Groupes : comp.arch
Date : 15. Oct 2024, 13:09:58
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <velm2m$1lhfe$4@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0
On 15/10/2024 13:22, Michael S wrote:
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!
 
I don't know how such objects would be allocated and addressed in such a system.  (I didn't do much DOS/Win16 programming, and on the few occasions when I needed structures bigger than 64KB in total, they were structured in multiple levels.)
But I would expect that in almost any practical system where you can use "p++" to step through big arrays, you can also convert the pointer to a uintptr_t and compare as shown above.
The exceptions would be systems where pointers hold more than just addresses, such as access control information or bounds that mean they are larger than the largest integer type on the target.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
16 Apr 24 * Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)237Lawrence D'Oliveiro
16 Apr 24 `* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)236David Brown
16 Apr 24  +- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1MitchAlsup1
26 May 24  +- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1MitchAlsup1
1 Oct 24  `* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)233MitchAlsup1
1 Oct 24   `* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)232Thomas Koenig
1 Oct 24    +* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)225MitchAlsup1
2 Oct 24    i+* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)223Brett
3 Oct 24    ii`* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)222Lawrence D'Oliveiro
3 Oct 24    ii +- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1Brett
3 Oct 24    ii +- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1Anton Ertl
3 Oct 24    ii `* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)219David Brown
3 Oct 24    ii  `* Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)218Anton Ertl
3 Oct 24    ii   +- Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)1David Brown
4 Oct 24    ii   +* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)215Lawrence D'Oliveiro
4 Oct 24    ii   i+- Re: Byte ordering1Lynn Wheeler
4 Oct 24    ii   i+* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)211David Brown
4 Oct 24    ii   ii`* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)210Anton Ertl
4 Oct 24    ii   ii +* Re: Byte ordering5BGB
5 Oct 24    ii   ii i`* Re: Byte ordering4MitchAlsup1
5 Oct 24    ii   ii i +* Re: Byte ordering2BGB
5 Oct 24    ii   ii i i`- Re: Byte ordering1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
5 Oct 24    ii   ii i `- Re: Byte ordering1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
5 Oct 24    ii   ii +* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)13Lawrence D'Oliveiro
5 Oct 24    ii   ii i`* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)12Brett
5 Oct 24    ii   ii i `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)11Anton Ertl
5 Oct 24    ii   ii i  `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)10Michael S
6 Oct 24    ii   ii i   +- Re: Byte ordering1Terje Mathisen
6 Oct 24    ii   ii i   `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)8Brett
7 Oct 24    ii   ii i    `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)7Lawrence D'Oliveiro
7 Oct 24    ii   ii i     `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)6Brett
7 Oct 24    ii   ii i      `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)5Michael S
7 Oct 24    ii   ii i       +* Re: Byte ordering2Stefan Monnier
7 Oct 24    ii   ii i       i`- Re: Byte ordering1Michael S
7 Oct 24    ii   ii i       `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24    ii   ii i        `- Re: Byte ordering1Terje Mathisen
6 Oct 24    ii   ii `* Re: Byte ordering191David Brown
6 Oct 24    ii   ii  `* Re: Byte ordering190Anton Ertl
6 Oct 24    ii   ii   `* Re: Byte ordering189John Dallman
7 Oct 24    ii   ii    +* Re: Byte ordering20Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24    ii   ii    i`* Re: Byte ordering19John Dallman
9 Oct 24    ii   ii    i +- VMS/NT memory management (was: Byte ordering)1Stefan Monnier
15 Oct 24    ii   ii    i +* Re: Byte ordering2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
15 Oct 24    ii   ii    i i`- Re: Byte ordering1MitchAlsup1
15 Oct 24    ii   ii    i `* Re: Byte ordering15Lawrence D'Oliveiro
15 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  +* Re: Byte ordering3Michael S
15 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  i+- Re: Byte ordering1John Dallman
18 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  i`- Re: Byte ordering1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
15 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  +* Re: Byte ordering9John Dallman
16 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  i+* Re: Byte ordering7George Neuner
16 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  ii`* Re: Byte ordering6Terje Mathisen
16 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  ii `* Re: Byte ordering5David Brown
17 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  ii  +* Re: Byte ordering2George Neuner
17 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  ii  i`- Re: Byte ordering1David Brown
17 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  ii  `* Re: clouds, not Byte ordering2John Levine
17 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  ii   `- Re: clouds, not Byte ordering1David Brown
18 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  i`- Re: Byte ordering1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
16 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  `* Re: Byte ordering2Paul A. Clayton
18 Oct 24    ii   ii    i   `- Re: Microkernels & Capabilities (was Re: Byte ordering)1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
7 Oct 24    ii   ii    `* 80286 protected mode168Anton Ertl
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     +* Re: 80286 protected mode5Lars Poulsen
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     i`* Re: 80286 protected mode4Terje Mathisen
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     i +- Re: 80286 protected mode1Michael S
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     i `* Re: 80286 protected mode2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  `- Re: 80286 protected mode1Terje Mathisen
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     +* Re: 80286 protected mode3Brett
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     i`* Re: 80286 protected mode2Michael S
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     i `- Re: 80286 protected mode1Brett
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     +- Re: 80286 protected mode1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24    ii   ii     +* Re: 80286 protected mode152MitchAlsup1
8 Oct 24    ii   ii     i+* Re: 80286 protected mode4Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24    ii   ii     ii`* Re: 80286 protected mode3MitchAlsup1
9 Oct 24    ii   ii     ii +- Re: 80286 protected mode1David Brown
15 Oct 24    ii   ii     ii `- Re: 80286 protected mode1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24    ii   ii     i`* Re: 80286 protected mode147Anton Ertl
8 Oct 24    ii   ii     i +- Re: 80286 protected mode1Robert Finch
9 Oct 24    ii   ii     i `* Re: 80286 protected mode145David Brown
9 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  +* Re: 80286 protected mode79MitchAlsup1
9 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i`* Re: 80286 protected mode78David Brown
9 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i `* Re: 80286 protected mode77Stephen Fuld
10 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i  +* Re: 80286 protected mode2MitchAlsup1
10 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i  i`- Re: 80286 protected mode1David Brown
10 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i  +- Re: 80286 protected mode1David Brown
11 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i  `* Re: 80286 protected mode73Tim Rentsch
15 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i   `* Re: 80286 protected mode72Stefan Monnier
15 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    +* Re: 80286 protected mode30MitchAlsup1
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    i+* Re: 80286 protected mode25MitchAlsup1
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    ii+* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode13John Levine
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iii+* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode7MitchAlsup1
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iiii`* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode6John Levine
17 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iiii `* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode5Thomas Koenig
20 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iiii  `* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode4Lawrence D'Oliveiro
20 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iiii   `* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode3George Neuner
22 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iiii    `* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode2Tim Rentsch
22 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iiii     `- Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode1George Neuner
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iii+- Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode1David Brown
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iii`* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode4Paul A. Clayton
17 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iii +- Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode1David Brown
20 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iii `* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
20 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iii  `- Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode1Paul A. Clayton
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    ii+* Re: 80286 protected mode7Thomas Koenig
17 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    ii+* Re: 80286 protected mode3George Neuner
17 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    ii`- Re: 80286 protected mode1Tim Rentsch
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    i+* Re: 80286 protected mode3David Brown
17 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    i`- Re: 80286 protected mode1Tim Rentsch
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    `* Re: 80286 protected mode41David Brown
9 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  +* Re: 80286 protected mode51Thomas Koenig
13 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  `* Re: 80286 protected mode14Anton Ertl
8 Oct 24    ii   ii     `* Re: 80286 protected mode6John Levine
6 Oct 24    ii   i`* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)2Michael S
4 Oct 24    ii   `- Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)1John Dallman
2 Oct 24    i`- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1Thomas Koenig
2 Oct 24    +* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)5David Schultz
3 Oct 24    `- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal