Re: incredible
From: Clarence (No_at_No.Com)
Date: 09/16/04
- Next message: John Woodgate: "Re: What does this have to do with electronics?"
- Previous message: John Larkin: "Re: Fet scope probe design recommendations"
- In reply to: John Larkin: "Re: incredible"
- Next in thread: Frank Bemelman: "Re: incredible"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:37:29 GMT
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote in message
news:4r7jk0l8rmrcbomrnchqmtqgsd6vol4e8p@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:21:12 +0200, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
> <frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> wrote:
>
>
> >The last part is probably *why* the memory separation features are not
> >commonly used - the performance cost of memory protection will make Games
> >suck!
>
> Or maybe because Bill has always liked self-modifying code.
>
> >Embedded systems are big on memory protection and one observes that
> >embedded's do not crash much ;-)
>
> My embedded systems are flat-addressing, non-MMU, unprotected, and
> they don't crash. That's because they don't have bugs.
>
> John
I will second that!
With bug-less code, never a crash!
- Next message: John Woodgate: "Re: What does this have to do with electronics?"
- Previous message: John Larkin: "Re: Fet scope probe design recommendations"
- In reply to: John Larkin: "Re: incredible"
- Next in thread: Frank Bemelman: "Re: incredible"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
