[MiNT] Proposal for SLB extension

[Joerg_Westheide@su.maus.de (Jörg Westheide)]

Hi Konrad!

KMK>Exactly, and the smallest block to allocate (with mp) is 8k for my
KMK>best knowledge. So doing separate kmalloc() for each application
KMK>which calls Slbopen(), to hold one longword, would be pure waste of
KMK>resources.
On machines with no MP the memory usage is minimal.
And as machines with MP are in average equipped with more memory than those
without, the drawback would not as hard for them as for the others. And this
memory block can also be used for other local SLB execs (for other SLBs) and
possibly for the SLB exec functions of other applications too...
And don't forget that this is only one possible solution, there sure are
others and I don't claim it to be the best

KMK>Also, I disagree with the argument that this creates two different
KMK>types of libs. Sure it does, but that's not any problem for an
KMK>application that is gonna use one, since the application sees no
KMK>difference between these 'types'.
And my solution does this without creating a new SLB type

KMK>In other words, I can't see why applications could have problems with
KMK>that, as long as the flags in the SLB header are setup according to
KMK>the real library's requirements.
The possible problems are not at the application level, they are at the user
level!

Have you thought about what it means for the concept of SLBs to have
different types?

Bye

                Joerg