2 ms·
> Perhaps we don't need a single flat address space with byte-addressable granularity at those sizes? History is filled with paging schemes in computers (e.g.
by bhouston 2y ago
> Perhaps we don't need a single flat address space with byte-addressable granularity at those sizes?
History is filled with paging schemes in computers (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension). Usually people do this initially as it allows one to access more space without requiring a change of all software, it is an extension to an existing software paradigm, but once the CPU can just address it all as a single linear space, it simplifies architectures and is preferred.
- fc417fc802 2y agoFair enough. I suppose once any scheme receives full native support it becomes indistinguishable from a flat address space anyway. What's a second partition if not an additional bit? My pondering is less "why such a large address space" and more "why such a large native word size"? Extra bits don't come without costs. As long as I'm asking ridiculous questions, why not 12-bit bytes? I feel like a 12/48 system would be significantly more practical for the vast majority of everyday tasks. Is it just due to inertia at this point or have I missed some fundamental observation?