On 4/11/07, Geoff Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jon Forrest wrote: > The examples you give are very good reasons why there is > a clear need for more than 32-bits of address space for > data. Again, I agree completely. But, if you read my original > posting, this is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking > about the need for more than 32-bits of address space for > instructions (a.k.a "text"). Why don't you run the "size" > command on any of your big programs and report back what > you find. My guess is that they'll be in the order > of 10s of megabytes. (I agree that this method doesn't > show the true run-time text-size requirements but > it's a good first attempt). Um, that would require distinct memory pools or some weird internal mapping scheme. Not nice. Much better architecturally to have no difference between pointers to instructions and pointers to data.
Hear hear! For self-adapting softare you *can't* distinguish instructions from data. That may sound over-specialized but I invite you to consider DNA and what it does: instruct enzymes to modify DNA. An awful lot comes out of that process. So I don't think it's just von Neumann's whim. Peter --
Geoffrey D. Jacobs _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
_______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
