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>