Processes and Communication
Michael David WINIKOFF
Fri, 5 Mar 93 17:50:45 EST
> Michael Winnikoff says:
Winikoff -- only one "n" ... thanks! :-)
> >> Some issues are sufficiently important that you can't abstract 'em.
> >> Each process having it's own address space is possible on all MMU equiped
> >> systems.
> MOOSE should be portable enough to be ported to other architectures than MMU
> based, be it older or newer (to be) architectures. Of course, on a non-MMU
> computer, you will be forced not to trust code not compiled (or interpreted)
> on local host).
This is a matter of specification -- we have to decide whether or not we
would like MOOSE to run on non-MMU machines.
I think not -- most (all?) new machines have MMUs and memory protection is
quite useful for a programmer.
(It;s also ESSENTIAL for a secure multi user system)
Any comments from anyone else?
> >> I am still opposed to having the system based around an interpreter.
> >> Sure, it simplifies the solutions to some problems however the efficiency e
> >> cost is prohibitive.
> I don't think it is prohibitive at all, provided heavy calculus is compiled.
> IMHO, you don't need have optimized code to properly run the system: OF COURSE
> TIME-CRITICAL ROUTINES MUST BE COMPILED, either system or user routines; but
> these can be more easily compiled from low-level code; so we come up with a
> LLL standard: the system (and/or the user) chooses when to partly compile or
> interpret code. HL routines often gain nothing at compile and may loose
> efficiency and genericity, even speed (see my interpreting by RET, more rapid
> than any CALL sequence). Whereas interpreting is very cheap in memory,
> portable, easy for security, communication, extension. With little redundancy,
> LLL programs can be as easily compiled as interpreted, so there's no need to
> fear for a specialized code which would fit either compiling or interpretinge
> but not both. The interpreter is also a very useful tool for system booting.
> Once the system is stable, it's time more to compile. What I mean is we don't
> need that much speed NOW.
Mixing interpreting and compiling creates additional complexity.
I would like to think that this issue is orthogonal (ie. independant of)
The benefits of interpretation that are claimed are:
(1) Code size
I don't feel that code size is such an issue.
Portability can be catered to at the language level -- I don't see any advantage
to providing portabiity by having different machines emulate a common abstract
Security is irrelevant -- as long as you allow the existance of compiled
code you have to provide memory protection to have security anyway.
A side note, having a machine independant "assembly language" is a good idea.
The main problem is that we have to ensure that
(1) It is implementable efficiently on all machines we would be porting to
(2) It doesn't make impossible (or inefficient) operations which are supported
by the machines.
Ie. if machine A has an efficient way of doing X which machine B doesn't have
then a global LLL will force us to ignore the efficient way of doing X.
For instance if machine A supports array indexing but B doesn't then LLL can
either offer array indexing and be inefficient on B or not offer array indexing
and have the compiler for A having to recognise a sequence of instructions
as representing an array reference which can be efficiently compiled.
Computer science honours. University of Melbourne, Australia.