home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: comma.rhein.de!serpens!not-for-mail
- From: mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de (Michael van Elst)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
- Subject: Re: OS features
- Date: 16 Jan 1996 21:39:18 +0100
- Organization: dis-
- Message-ID: <4dh2dm$jui@serpens.rhein.de>
- References: <DLAA61.2us@inter.NL.net>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: serpens.rhein.de
-
- hguijt@inter.NL.net (Hans Guijt) writes:
-
- >Isn't that overly paranoid? I know how much you hate c0derz, but Forbid ()
- >has a real purpose (at least in existing machines).
-
- Sure. But for normal applications this is better handled with Semaphores
- (that use Forbid() internally!).
-
- >What other functions do you mean here? Keep in mind that not everybody is in
- >the business of writing 'normal' programs. Some people need more, and so far
- >I think the Amiga catered well to them.
-
- Oh.. Things like SuperState() or SetIntVector().
-
- And don't get me wrong. I don't want to remove these calls, but I want
- to assure that most programs do not use them. What is good in memory
- protection when you can easily circumvent it.
-
- >An 68000 emulator could run without memory protection, and new programs
- >should use the MEMF_PUBLIC flag which indicates memory is to be shared
- >between applications. I don't see any problem here.
-
- Why would you want to run 68000 programs unprotected and why do you
- want to keep separated APIs for 68000 and PowerPC ?
-
- And no, MEMF_PUBLIC is probably not a good method and definitely not
- the best.
-
- Regards,
- --
- Michael van Elst
-
- Internet: mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de
- "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
-