Re: STiNG, CAB, and Multitasking (strikes back) (fwd)

[Jo Even Skarstein <joska@nuts.edu>]

On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Peter Rottengatter wrote:

> Such hardlinership is seriously threatening general compatibility of MiNT,

?? I can't see that MiNT is less compatible than e.g. MagiC? And I don't
hear any complaints about the fact that MagiC has to run before everything
else (of course it has to).

> I wonder if you'd change your mind once some important (for you) piece of
> software is affected. Maybe NVDI. The Behnes are good friends of Andreas
> Kromke (MagiC). If they'd decide to use an exception handler that in some
> similar way doesn't work with MiNT, they won't care, since Andreas' MagiC
  ^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you saying that STinG doesn't work with MiNT here? All you have to do
is to run it after MiNT and everything is OK. Similar with NVDI, it has to
run *before* MiNT or it won't work. What's the problem here?

> STinG's problem at that position is that it works from an interrupt. So 
> any call to GEMDOS is entirely out of question. The code does not know

Fair enough. But since it works fine when started after MiNT I can't see
that this is a problem.

> does not become illegal just because you do not like it ! Atari never has
> forbidden linking handlers into exception vectors, after all there is a
> BIOS call to simplify (encourage) it !

Well, Atari released MiNT too, so what's your point? Is MiNT or TOS
"correct" here?

> Another point : STinG is an OS extension just like MiNT is. So STinG has
> every right, even by your own (questionable) point of view, to use 
> exception handlers.

Yes, and MiNT doesn't object either as long as you intercept them after
MiNT is initialized.

And what about the possible problems with having MiNT's vectors at the end
of the XBRA-chain? It doesn't work today, atleast not on my machine.


/*
** Jo Even Skarstein   http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~josk/
**
**   beer - maria mckee - atari falcon - babylon 5
*/