Re: Unlinking vectors

[Peter Rottengatter <perot@pallas.amp.uni-hannover.de>]

On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Konrad Kokoszkiewicz wrote:

> > <speculation>
> > Just a thought:
> > 
> > MiNT doesn't "know" about processes started before it (TSRs), and
> > can't control them either. But processes started *after* MiNT are
> > childs of MiNT, and under the kernel's control. Can this have
> > something do to with MiNT's desire to unlink old exception-vectors?
> > Some sort of security/recovery-thing?
> > </speculation>
> > 
> > I don't know the details in the MiNT-kernel, so this is (as pointed
> > out) purely speculations.
> 
> Actually, I know *one* case when MiNT is unlinking all installed vectors
> arbitrarily. Namely, this is the case when MiNT quits. And this case
> applies only to TSR programs installed *after* MiNT. In other words,
> when MiNT quits, it restores the state of vectors from the time before it
> was loaded.

Hmm, IMHO that's hardly sensible ? There may be a good reason for it (if
someone knows it, please ...), but it's not very consequent, given the
newer notion that MiNT should run first in the AUTO folder. It's sensible
only if programs could be divided into MiNT-supporting and not-MiNT-
supporting, then the latter would run first, then MiNT, then the former
programs. Then MiNT would unlink all stuff that "relies" on it when
exiting.

BTW.: MiNT was called an OS extension. Is it sensible in the first place
that such a thing can terminate ? Probably yes, but only if it works
on the system carefully enough that a consistent state of the system can
be restored. That calls for refraining from unlinking foreign handlers
too.


Cheers  Peter

---------------------------------------------------------------------
   Peter Rottengatter       perot@pallas.amp.uni-hannover.de
                            http://www.stud.uni-hannover.de/~perot
---------------------------------------------------------------------