In <of6f28edcb.889430cf-on8525751c.004f270c-8525751c.0050f...@us.ibm.com>,
on 12/11/2008
at 09:44 AM, Peter Relson <rel...@us.ibm.com> said:
>Please note also that dirty getmain does not try to be omniscient. It is
>a fact (but not a documented promise) that the first getmain done under a
>job for a user-region subpool will get 0's, simply because of the "free
>region" done between jobs. Dirty getmain may not note that and may "dirty
>it". A program that relied on that behavior would technically be
>"correct"
If it's relying on inference from observed behavior rather than on
documentation, then it's debatable whether it is correct. I miss the old
concept of the compiler setting uninitialized words to parity errors,
something that is not feasible on current architectures.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
