Talk:Locality of reference: Difference between revisions
imported>Nick Johnson No edit summary |
imported>Robert Tito m (swap?) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
I agree with your assessment. Informally speaking, one can "load an address", but it is more proper to load the contents at an address. | I agree with your assessment. Informally speaking, one can "load an address", but it is more proper to load the contents at an address. | ||
--[[User:Nick Johnson|Nick Johnson]] 13:38, 21 February 2007 (CST) | --[[User:Nick Johnson|Nick Johnson]] 13:38, 21 February 2007 (CST) | ||
== swap? == | |||
how about memory swapping, quite common in microsoft/unix/mac and all databases.[[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | [[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]] 13:44, 21 February 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 14:44, 21 February 2007
I didn't change it but in my opinion the use of "memory address" in the article is confusing, e.g.
memory caches, which attempt to load a range of memory addresses at a time, under the assumption that the excess memory addresses will be loaded soon after.
I would have thought of memory content (or just memory) being loaded and later on accessed, not addresses. But I'm not a native speaker.
--Markus Baumeister 14:27, 20 February 2007 (CST)
Markus,
I agree with your assessment. Informally speaking, one can "load an address", but it is more proper to load the contents at an address. --Nick Johnson 13:38, 21 February 2007 (CST)
swap?
how about memory swapping, quite common in microsoft/unix/mac and all databases.Robert Tito | Talk 13:44, 21 February 2007 (CST)