Mill Computing, Inc. Forums The Mill Architecture Scratchpad design decision Reply To: Scratchpad design decision

Post count: 6

You… aren’t answering the question I’m asking, but I think I see where you’re getting confused.

I get that the Scratchpad is a different place than the belt. I do. It isn’t a extension of the belt, it’s a different physical location.

I said “an entry-based Scratchpad would be a logical extension of such a structure”. Allow me to expand and unbox:

I an only talking about storing and addressing an entry-based list of items. That the same mechanism that stores and addresses those still-live-but-older values would be the same or similar to the mechanism that stores or addresses the items in an entry-based Scratchpad.

This entry-based Scratchpad would still be populated by items sent there specifically. It would just share part of its mechanism with where older-but-still-live belt items stay until falling off.

And physically locating those places in the Spiller system is what I assumed. (In retrospect, the Scratchpad as a whole likely can’t be fit in the Spiller without pointlessly ballooning the size and scope of that subsystem.)

edit: By “sharing the same mechanism” I meant they would share the same design, not the same physical one. That the design would already need to exist and giving the Scratchpad its own copy would be “simple.” Your first post says it’s not worth the effort, though.

  • This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by  NoDot. Reason: Additional disambiguation and correcting spelling mistakes