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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,251afb8f1c322bf0
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Simon Wright <simon@pogner.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Caching & Annex C.6
Date: 1999/09/05
Message-ID: <x7vg10t2ov4.fsf@pogner.moho>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 521964268
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98
References: <x7vyaenahw3.fsf@pogner.moho> <7qss9f$a19$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 936680058 nnrp-12:9785 NO-IDENT
 pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98
Organization: At Home
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
Date: 1999-09-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:

> Machines with non-coherent caches always have a way of
> signalling selected data as being non-cachable, forcing
> access to a shared memory

Oh, that's good. Can anyone name a typical machine of this type? (so I
know when to start worrying)

>                           (well let's say, that's true
> of shared memory machines).

Of course if it didn't have shared memory you wouldn't care .. I
suppose