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: 10 Jan 1996 15:50:08 +0100
- Organization: dis-
- Message-ID: <4d0jn0$aqm@serpens.rhein.de>
- References: <92747544038@PAPA.NORTH.DE> <4b3h9s$1st@alterdial.UU.NET> <2152.6561T63T2136@cycor.ca> <4b7i18$si1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <oj6raxxrr0o.fsf@hpsrk.fc.hp.com> <13213431@sourcery.han.de> <4cp0un$cve@serpens.rhein.de> <4d0b56$gga@tuegate.tue.nl>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: serpens.rhein.de
-
- leon@esrac.ele.tue.nl (Leon Woestenberg) writes:
-
- >Michael van Elst (mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de) wrote:
-
- >: Separated address spaces for each process are even better because
-
- >I personally see this as the most optimal solution, but my view may be
- >limited on this.
-
- This is no solution at all since AmigaOS tasks share pointers. And
- a pointer in one address space is invalid in another address space.
-
- >Where does it break compatibility? (And do you mean compatiblity with
- >programs not using the MEMF_PUBLIC flag, or all current programs?).
-
- Close to all current programs including the OS.
-
- --
- Michael van Elst
-
- Internet: mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de
- "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
-