Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 28 Mar 2006 11:55:00 +0200
From:      "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
To:        Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au>
Cc:        Jason Evans <jasone@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Proposed addition of malloc_size_np() 
Message-ID:  <61460.1143539700@critter.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:11:53 %2B1100." <20060328091153.GC961@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20060328091153.GC961@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>, Peter Jeremy writes:


>In an ideal world, a pointer would be an [address, size] pair (or even
>[size, address, type] tuple) so that any the bounds (and type) can be
>verified by anything that wants to.  (The iAPX432 tried this).

The first computer to actually _do_ this was Linn's "Rekursiv" computer,
which had the microcode manage in-memory objects, including swapping
to/from backing store.

	http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/retrocomputing/rekursiv/



-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?61460.1143539700>