Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Actually, thinking on this, it's obviously impossible to follow the 
>> standards on any machine with virtual addressing, too.
> 
>   Why? I thought the whole idea of virtual addressing is that non-contiguous
> memory is made to *look* contiguous to a program, which is precisely what
> the C standard requires. So virtual addressing *fixes* the problem rather
> than *creating* it.

I was addressing the part of the original comments that said the same bit 
can't be part of two different bytes.

In any case, if I have more RAM than address space (say, a 6G box running 
under WindowsXP-32), I can address all of memory, just not with a char*. So 
VM both lets me have one byte in two places and also lets me have bytes that 
no pointer can point to.

That's why I'm curious about exactly how the standards body worded these 
things, rather than the FAQ-writer's take on it. I'm sure the standards body 
isn't still back in a Z-80 mindset.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message