Message from discussion Virtual memory routines on RSX
Received: by 10.181.11.234 with SMTP id el10mr608513wid.2.1347127992795;
Sat, 08 Sep 2012 11:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Johnny Billquist <b...@softjar.se>
Subject: Re: Virtual memory routines on RSX
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 20:52:05 +0200
Organization: Update Computer Club
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
X-Trace: Iltempo.Update.UU.SE 1346784726 7126 22.214.171.124 (4 Sep 2012 18:52:06 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 18:52:06 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 2012-09-04 19:14, Rob Brown wrote:
> On 2012-09-04, Lee Gleason <lee.glea...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Anyone ever seen these used?
> Johnny has used them.
>> Have an opinion on whether they are useful?
> Last time I looked at them, I thought that they did not expand the
> address space enough to make them worthwhile. I thought you could do
> more with the PLAS directives, or even just a virtual array.
> My 2 cents.
I wrote a rely to Lee, but I can't see it, so I don't know what happened
Anyway, yes, I've used the VM library. It's pretty ok, but it has a
couple of limitations that I find annoying.
1. You cannot free memory. Only allocate.
2. You cannot allocate more than 512 bytes in one chunk.
The VM library in turn uses the DM library, which is actually a very
useful and nice library.
PLAS directives are nice, but the problem with them is that all RSX
systems do not neccesarily have the PLAS directive.
Virtual arrays are pretty much no different than the VM library, but
With the VM library, you can pretty much have 128K of ram to play with
(if I remember right, but it might be that it is just 64K).
Some of the more known users of the VM library is MACRO-11 and TKB,
which uses them for the symbol tables and other information. Neither of
the restrictions mentioned above is a problem in this case.
IND uses the DM library only.