This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This was previously a transwikied dicdef; I have now fleshed it out into a proper stub: there is lots more that can go into this article regarding computer security, malware, and different implementations of the x86 architecture. -- The Anome 11:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
"With the introduction of SYSENTER/SYSEXIT and SYSCALL/SYSRET, a new faster mechanism was introduced for control transfers for x86 programs"
"Upon comparing call gates to interrupts, call gates are significantly faster."
2 methods... each is faster than the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.135.28 ( talk) 14:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The concept of a call gate is not unique to the Intel x86 architecture and did not originate there; it goes back at least as far as Multics. The article should either be renamed, e.g., to Call gate (Intel), or rewritten to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 20:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC).
The original Multics implementation of protection rings required that the Dynamic linker handle a segment fault for the first invocation of every routine. Call gates allowed eliminating that overhead. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk)
@
Widefox:
Call gate redirects to this article, which only refers to Intel's use.
user:Widefox replaced {{
about|call gates on Intel x86 hardware|text=For more general information on the concept and history, consult the literature.}}
with {{
about|call gates on Intel x86 hardware|more general information|Protection ring}}
. However.
protection ring does not discuss call gates, except to link back to
Call gate (Intel). The summary of the edit cites
WP:NOARTICLE, but there were no redlinks in the removed text.
I believe that either the redirect should be removed or the hatnote should specify that the term call gate has a wider meaning. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 02:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Their purpose is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for.(emphasis own). So I consider fixing the bad hatnote you added [1] is a good idea.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This was previously a transwikied dicdef; I have now fleshed it out into a proper stub: there is lots more that can go into this article regarding computer security, malware, and different implementations of the x86 architecture. -- The Anome 11:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
"With the introduction of SYSENTER/SYSEXIT and SYSCALL/SYSRET, a new faster mechanism was introduced for control transfers for x86 programs"
"Upon comparing call gates to interrupts, call gates are significantly faster."
2 methods... each is faster than the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.135.28 ( talk) 14:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The concept of a call gate is not unique to the Intel x86 architecture and did not originate there; it goes back at least as far as Multics. The article should either be renamed, e.g., to Call gate (Intel), or rewritten to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 20:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC).
The original Multics implementation of protection rings required that the Dynamic linker handle a segment fault for the first invocation of every routine. Call gates allowed eliminating that overhead. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk)
@
Widefox:
Call gate redirects to this article, which only refers to Intel's use.
user:Widefox replaced {{
about|call gates on Intel x86 hardware|text=For more general information on the concept and history, consult the literature.}}
with {{
about|call gates on Intel x86 hardware|more general information|Protection ring}}
. However.
protection ring does not discuss call gates, except to link back to
Call gate (Intel). The summary of the edit cites
WP:NOARTICLE, but there were no redlinks in the removed text.
I believe that either the redirect should be removed or the hatnote should specify that the term call gate has a wider meaning. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 02:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Their purpose is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for.(emphasis own). So I consider fixing the bad hatnote you added [1] is a good idea.