Talk:Memory segmentation

message: Afaik, paging isn't another way to ensure page protection; in fact, I believed that segmentation was built upon paging just to address a lack of the latter.
See for example Tanenbaum A., "Modern Operating Systems", 2nd edition, §4.8 - fig. 4.37.
:No.  There exist processors that offer segmentation without paging (e.g., the Burroughs large systems) and thus offer only segment-level protection, processors that offer paging without segmentation (e.g., several RISC processors such as MIPS processors) and that use protection bits in the page table to provide protection, and processors that offer both paging and segmentation and either use only segment protections or segment protections and per-page protections to provide protection. Guy Harris 04:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paging, segmentation, and protection 

message: I believe this article should be merged with Memory segment. They are about essentially the same thing.
Strake 21:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, memory segment is an article about segmentation in x86 processors, not about segmentation in general.  This page shouldn't be merged with it; we need at least one page to describe segmentation in general, without incorporating a bunch of x86 stuff that might lead people to think x86 segmentation (whether real or protected mode) is the be-all and end-all of segmentation.  (Perhaps memory segment should be renamed in such a way as to make it clearer that it's x86-specific.) Guy Harris 04:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking for the meaning of the order or command ls I found that it is defined elsewhere as "short for list" and in Wikipedia as: "Its name derives from a similar command list segments in Multics, a system in which memory segments and files were synonyms." So I wonder if the origin is "list segments" and not the improbable "list". Could someone please confirm whether ls actually originates in "list segments"? I am after this because it is so much simple to remember the commands if one knows where they come from originally. Because of this I think that memory segment is a concept clearly different from segmentation and should be explained separately. --FelipeTD (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Memory segment now redirects to memory segmentation, and there's an x86 memory segmentation page for all the x86-specific stuff.  Guy Harris (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: It's worth noting that in several implementations of segmented VM, "protection" (when present at all) was not applied to the segment but rather the segment pointer.  On both the Burroughs and IBM S/38 systems authorities were checked when the segment pointer was loaded.  I vaguely recall that in the Burroughs case some of the protections were loaded into hardware registers, for later checking against memory accesses, but in the case of the S/38 no authority information was preserved after loading the pointer -- rather the reason for loading the pointer (read/write/execute/etc) was checked against the authority bits in the pointer, and an error generated if the pointer could not be loaded for that reason.
In spite of this "weakness", the S/38 OS was quite secure.
drh (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Segmentation and protection 

message: The article’s title "memory segmentation" suggest that it is a matter of memory addressing. 
But such things as [ "code segment"] (in an object file) do not require that segment registers actually had any use. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds right to me, maybe some of the discussion of object files should be deleted or moved.  Segments (or groups) in an object can support memory segmentation if it exists. Peter Flass (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  But what to do with /? In one hand, the term possesses the same ambiguity between linker’s segments and CPU segments. In another hand, the information at CS: usually originates from ".text", so the "code segment" (CPU) usually implies "text segments" (linker). BTW, I just noticed that these things are referred to as sections (not segments) in objdump’s documentation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion about [[memory address]] segments and [[linker (computing)|linker]]'s segments may not exist 

message: Hint: On x86 CPUs within the "real mode" we becomes exactly 1088 KiB - 15 Bytes addressable space together with the combination of the segment and the offset part for to build an address.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.153.121 (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  x86 segmentation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Memory segmentation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111013222125/http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/intel/iAPX_432/171821-001_Introduction_to_the_iAPX_432_Architecture_Aug81.pdf to http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/intel/iAPX_432/171821-001_Introduction_to_the_iAPX_432_Architecture_Aug81.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It moved (bitsavers.org moved manuals about chips into a separate "components" collection). Guy Harris (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The lead currently states  However, on the B5000, the Master Control Program (MCP) also used segmentation to manage memory; a process could run even when some of its segments were swapped out.
Given that there is a History  section, I'm not sure that this even belongs in the lead. I'm not sure whether to remove the paragraph, delete it, or merge it into History. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete history in the lead 

message: Edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Memory_segmentation&curid=1323131&diff=1126677852&oldid=1112702082 by Widefox added the short description . That description is too general, since it applies to architectures where the OS is not free to move segments. How about ? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to change it to what you like. Per WP:SDCONTENT  . Widefox; talk 15:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short description? 

message: #Examples currently has #S/370 architecture and #x86 architecture; I believe that Burroughs MCP on the B5000 and B6500 would be better examples. All virtual operating systems on the IBM System/370 rely on paging and make minimal use of segmentation. Similarly, while some systems exploited segmentation on the Intel 80286, I'm not aware of any that exploited it on subsequent chips.
I'm not sure whether it would be better to replace the current examples or simply add new ones. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The GE 645/Honeywell 6180 + Multics might also be a good example as well; it's a more "typical" implementation of segmentation than the Burroughs machines are, so both would be interesting. Guy Harris (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples?