Re: More benchmark bullshit, and Linux luser mating calls... (was Re: Linux betas NT in TPC testing, running Oracle8

On 27 Apr 99 21:58:41 GMT, David Brower <dbrower_at_us.oracle.com> wrote:
>nws_at_rollingthunder.demon.co.uk (Anthony Ord) writes:
>
>>>
>>>How can pointers in structures be naughty?
>
>>Can someone point out how to do linked lists and binary
>>trees without them?
>
>(a) Array indeces
>(b) object references (which need not be pointers)
>
>Pointers as used in C are inherently "unsafe", though it is
>silly to complain about this as a Linux problem. It's not
>like many of the competitive OSes are written in something
>else that is "better"

Handling references via arrays, and treating positions in the array as indices requires pointer management every bit as much as a scheme that has the pointers look upon "raw memory." With the upside that out-of-bounds conditions may possibly be caught by the language's run time system rather than having to rely on hardware.

Of course, if the hardware supports bounds checking nicely, it may be better to let the hardware manage it...

And "object references" wind up as references to memory at *some* point.

When implementing an operating system, you have a choice: a) You can have pointer manipulations pervade the system, or

b) You can construct some "reference management" section (aka "library" aka "module") that is *totally* pervaded by pointer manipulations, and have the rest of the system implicitly use the pointer manipulations from the "reference management module."

Note that in neither case do you get to avoid having to do grungy work of pointer manipulations.

-- 
"(Windows NT) version 5.0 will build on a proven system architecture
and incorporate tens of thousands of bug fixes from version 4.0."
-- <http://www.microsoft.com/y2k.asp?A=7&B=5>
cbbrowne_at_ntlug.org- <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>