Re: [MiNT] MiNTlibs question

["Guido Flohr" <gufl0000@stud.uni-sb.de>]

Hi!

On Tue, Apr 27, 1999 at 03:14:33AM +0200, Thomas Binder wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On Mon, Apr 26, 1999 at 03:45:31AM +0200, Guido Flohr wrote:
> > I would actually prefer to change the chunk size of the kernel.  Konrad,
> > Frank, your opinion?  
> 
> I'm neither Konrad, nor Frank, but lowering the chunk size of the kernel

Sorry, that didn't mean that I wasn't interested in other people's
opinion.  It's just that I explicitely addressed the people that would
probably implement such a change.

> would mean no memory protection on almost all 040-based systems, as the
> MMU setups found there (which are only modified) have 8K pages. It's not
> possible to have proper protection for chunks smaller than the pagesize.

Hm, is that unchangeable?
My intention was the following:  I have spent some thoughts on taking over
an ELF implementation (for shared library support) for MiNT.  All of the
existing implementations I've seen are based on a page size of 4k.  I
am sure that this could be changed to 8k for MiNT but I don't know how
much extra work this would cause when porting such software.  Anyway, the
page size will only become relevant when MiNT provides a virtual memory
management.

So, all of you: Should I change the chunksize to 8k in malloc() then?  As
I've mentioned before, I am not familiar with the internals of malloc and
so I can't say if such a change would have negative side effects.

Ciao

Guido
-- 
http://stud.uni-sb.de/~gufl0000
mailto:gufl0000@stud.uni-sb.de