home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: univ-lyon1.fr!ifhamy!dscreve
- From: dscreve@ifhamy (David Screve)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Subject: Re: FindTask() VERY IMPORTANT
- Date: 7 Mar 1996 20:50:17 GMT
- Organization: INSA Lyon - Computer Science Dept / France
- Message-ID: <4hni69$8ub@tempo.univ-lyon1.fr>
- References: <4hfvff$sj6@werple.net.au> <192.6637T931T2098@academy.bastad.se>?20@ <4hm7qm$otm@news.uni-paderborn.de> <MlDlTdS00iWS45Xc5x@andrew.cmu.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: ifhamy.insa-lyon.fr
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
-
- Berend Ozceri (bo24+@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
- : Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.amiga.programmer: 7-Mar-96 Re: FindTask()
- : VERY IMPORTANT by Marco Nelissen@xs1.xs4al
- : > Ralph Schmidt (laire@basis.owl.de) wrote:
- : > : Never ever use SysBase->ThisTask for your programs. It will be
- : > : banned/forbidden in the next OS release.
- : >
- : > Says who? Why would a future OS not use this field?
-
- : Any changes in the Exec micro-kernel, especially in the scheduler,
- : especially leaning towards multiprocessor support would make that field
- : obsolete.
-
- Regarding the scheduling code, I think there is no reason
- to delete this information. Yes, TCNestID, and such other could be
- "Schedule Dependant", but on every multitask OS, there is only one task
- active on a time (except on multi-processor computer, but this problem
- can be solved by protecting memory).
-
-
- David
-
-