home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.arch
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!stanford.edu!enterpoop.mit.edu!eff!ssd.intel.com!ichips!ichips!glew
- From: glew@pdx007.intel.com (Andy Glew)
- Subject: Re: branch-and-link
- In-Reply-To: dswartz@sw.stratus.com's message of 28 Dec 1992 04:49:40 GMT
- Message-ID: <GLEW.92Dec31163459@pdx007.intel.com>
- Sender: news@ichips.intel.com (News Account)
- Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon
- References: <1hkqk3INNsns@transfer.stratus.com> <1hlll9INNe0s@uwm.edu>
- <1hm0cpINN8nf@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> <1hm114INN6v2@transfer.stratus.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:34:59 GMT
- Lines: 32
-
- On a related note (vis-a-vis debugging ease) to the branch-and-link issue, another peeve
- I've always had is that no commercially available processors (that I know of) make NULL
- pointer detection easy withou serious run-time overhead. Various OS's try by unmapping
- the first N pages of memory, which works fine until you run into a chip like the 68030,
- which supports huge displacements. Not to mention if the index register pushes the
- effective address out of your protected window, you're hosed. If you have a standard
- base_reg+index_reg+disp format, it would seem to me that having the processor check the
- base register for NULL and faulting if it is wouldn't be that hard (or inefficient).
- Especially if NULL happens to be zero on that machine.
-
- Rather contradicts another thread.
-
- Compilers can perform significantly more optimizations if accesses
- to address 0 (and neighbourhood) are guaranteed not to fault.
-
- See:
-
- "Proving safety of speculative load instructions at compile time"
- David Bernstein
- Michael Rodeh
- Mooly Sagiv
- IBM Israel
- --
-
- Andy Glew, glew@ichips.intel.com
- Intel Corp., M/S JF1-19, 5200 NE Elam Young Pkwy,
- Hillsboro, Oregon 97124-6497
-
- This is a private posting; it does not indicate opinions or positions
- of Intel Corp.
-
- Intel Inside (tm)
-