Re: OT: down with memory protection!

2004-12-03 Thread Dave Carrigan
On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 12:36:23AM +1100, Sam Watkins wrote: > > This is provably impossible. Reference "the halting problem". > > Turing showed only that it is possible to construct an program which cannot be > proven either to halt or not to halt. The vast majority of real-world > programs >

Re: OT: down with memory protection!

2004-12-03 Thread Sam Watkins
I don't think I explained myself very well the first time, so I'll try again. My goal is to create a system where it is practical to write programs that are composed of reusable small sub-programs, a bit like the shell, or like OO but with small, active objects that can have a thread of their own,

Re: OT: down with memory protection!

2004-12-03 Thread Frank Gevaerts
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 03:38:38PM -0600, Kirk Strauser wrote: > > and the compiler and programmer could be required to prove that the code > > would not loop forever without calling yield. > > This is provably impossible. Reference "the halting problem". Not really. Let the programmer try to pr

Re: OT: down with memory protection!

2004-12-02 Thread Kirk Strauser
On Thursday 02 December 2004 17:26, Ron Johnson wrote: > I'm pretty sure that they are distinct features, i.e., it's possible > to do mem prot w/o VM , and vice versa. I should've said "virtual memory as implemented by modern Unix systems". Sam, to clarify: since the VM abstracts physical addr

Re: OT: down with memory protection!

2004-12-02 Thread Ron Johnson
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 15:38 -0600, Kirk Strauser wrote: > On Thursday 02 December 2004 09:30, Sam Watkins wrote: > > > Current mainstream OSes like Linux implement memory protection primarily > > to prevent buggy or malicious processes trampling on each-others memory > > and memory-mapped devices,

Re: OT: down with memory protection!

2004-12-02 Thread Paul E Condon
I'm uncertain as to how to answer this, but I'll give a few comments: On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 02:30:10AM +1100, Sam Watkins wrote: > I have this somewhat crazy idea about systems design which is highly off topic > here but maybe someone would be interested. (I'm not subscribed to any more > appro

Re: OT: down with memory protection!

2004-12-02 Thread Kirk Strauser
On Thursday 02 December 2004 09:30, Sam Watkins wrote: > Current mainstream OSes like Linux implement memory protection primarily > to prevent buggy or malicious processes trampling on each-others memory > and memory-mapped devices, or spying on other processes. No, they don't. Memory protection

OT: down with memory protection!

2004-12-02 Thread Sam Watkins
I have this somewhat crazy idea about systems design which is highly off topic here but maybe someone would be interested. (I'm not subscribed to any more appropriate groups at the moment.) If this is _too_ OT please let me know. I want to be able to write programs with lots and lots of coroutin