From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3cd3b8571c28b75f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-22 19:29:21 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: aek@vib.usr.pu.ru (Alexander Kopilovitch) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: A Customer's Request For Open Source Software Date: 22 Aug 2003 19:29:20 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: References: <3F44BC65.4020203@noplace.com><20030822005323.2ff66948.david@realityrift.com> <20030822020403.625ffbf5.david@realityrift.com> <3F4657AD.1040908@attbi.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.242.19.28 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1061605761 26956 127.0.0.1 (23 Aug 2003 02:29:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Aug 2003 02:29:21 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41813 Date: 2003-08-23T02:29:21+00:00 List-Id: "Warren W. Gay wrote: > The problem is that even when NVRAM (in whatever form) becomes > cheap and plentiful, addressing it still remains a problem. Assume > that molecular memory becomes cheap and you have Petabytes+ of memory > to waste with home movies and wave files. Do you want to use 1024 bit > addresses to gain access to each byte of it? Quite strange to see such a concern here, in Ada (not C or Assembler) forum. Why do you need global addresses of these bytes? It is a compiler's job and not a concern for an application programmer. Well, I hope you aren't imagining Petabytes+ single data item, string or BLOB -:) > For this reason, even if memory becomes plentiful (as one hopes it > will), it will still likely become "packaged" similar to the way > disk I/O occur today. We just won't call it track and cylinder > any more, but we'll fetch bunches of memory by some block address > on an as needed basis. No, there is no need to fetch bunches of memory - compiler will tell (perhaps through OS directives) the memory chip siutable value of "base" and it's enough - we went through that long ago. Naturally, that will be less efficient than we currently associate with "real" (that is, non-virtual) memory - the switches of the "base" will take time, but it will be more efficient than disk I/O. Alexander Kopilovitch aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia