home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu.tar
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
icon
/
newsgrp
/
group93b.txt
/
000027_icon-group-sender _Sun Apr 25 23:14:24 1993.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1993-06-16
|
2KB
Received: by cheltenham.cs.arizona.edu; Mon, 26 Apr 1993 12:21:13 MST
Date: 25 Apr 93 23:14:24 GMT
From: howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news.uta.edu!utafll.uta.edu!bruce@gatech.edu (Bruce Samuelson)
Organization: UTexas at Arlington, Linguistics
Subject: Lack of robustness in 32-bit DOS version
Message-Id: <BRUCE.93Apr25171424@utafll.utafll.uta.edu>
References: <9304230936.AA23022@univ-caen.fr>, <BRUCE.93Apr24184130@utafll.utafll.uta.edu>
Sender: icon-group-request@cs.arizona.edu
To: icon-group@cs.arizona.edu
Status: R
Errors-To: icon-group-errors@cs.arizona.edu
> Hint: Icon really prefers not to run in the small address space
> of an 8086 processor. DOS was, in turn, never meant to run pro-
> grams that bite off large amounts of working memory, and do their
> own reallocation, extension, and memory management.
The data indexing and compression runs I referred to used the 32-bit
version of Icon for 386/486 processors that bundles a DOS extender.
They were running on a 486 processor. If they had been run "in the
small address space of an 8086 processor", they would have crashed in
short order. The most probable explanation of the problems I reported
is that this particular 32-bit version of Icon is not robust. Like
Richard Goerwitz, the Unix version I use is robust for the
applications for which I have used it.
--
**********************************************************
* Bruce Samuelson Department of Linguistics *
* bruce@ling.uta.edu University of Texas at Arlington *
**********************************************************