Re: Address spaces

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@specifix.com>]

On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 17:29 -0700, Stan Shebs wrote:
> Doug Evans wrote:
> > It would be useful to have proper address spaces for non-multi-process
> > situations too.  At the moment all one can do is hack in bits to
> > unused parts of the address (assuming such bits are available ...).
> > [I'm sure this isn't news.  Just saying there are multiple reasons for
> > addresses being more than just the CORE_ADDR of today, and if we solve
> > one, let's at least consider the others too.]
> >   
> Do you have some specific ideas in mind? Because I was assuming (and 
> this is good to be aware of) that there would not be more than one 
> address space associated with a process.

Harvard architectures?

Segmented architectures (intel real mode)?  CS:deadbeef
vs. DS:deadbeef?


>  (Instantly split I/D targets a 
> la D10V come to mind, although that was handled by distinguishing 
> pointers from addresses.)

I have a half-recollection of doing a target that had a
"code:" addr space and a "data:" addr space.  Can't remember
if that ever got contributed?

Anyway, the idea of making CORE_ADDR a struct has been 
around for a long time.  We've done our best to avoid it, 
but sort of always known it would come back one day.