Re: [MiNT] 1.15.10 (fwd)

[Katherine Ellis <kellis@fdn.com>]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Konrad M. Kokoszkiewicz wrote:

> For example, people think that it is a guaranteed system feature, when no
> task switches occur in Supervisor mode. Here even Julian was once trapped
> in it, I also think that e.g. N.AES relies on it somehow (instead of
> putting code, that can't be interrupted, in scope of a
> semaphore). However, when you read the docs, you actually see that they
> explicitly say even a contrary thing: supervisor blocks multitasking,
> yes, but don't rely on it, this feature will go away! In other words, if a
> program relies on that, is it a reason to not expand the MiNT kernel some
> day so that it would multitask even in supervisor mode? Or rather a reason
> to fix the broken program?
> 

Draco, I mostly agree with you, however I would like to add;

People use "nasty" hack, routines, undocumented features mostly because
there is no better at the time, either speed wise, or complexity of use
for the code, or even compatibility itself.
Coding applications for atari is a challenge, we want everything to work
everywhere which is simply not possible. 
How can a program work in tos 1.02 and magic and mint on 040 cpu and 68000
all in one program? it is not doable without major headaches.
When I look around, starting from linux, from the libs, distributions, cpu
etc prog won't work, and it is not expected to have a redhat 7.x distrib
to run prog from redhat 4.x or 5.x for that matter.
Windows, mac, or even worse sgi IRIX! are very close to the OS revisions.
On atari 1 program, as simple as it might be must be supported across all
env/all cpu. even if the cpu can't meet the hypothetical requirements.
Such as a 68000 STf port of povray. Why not in a way, but is it really
worth it?

Anyway, enough "ranting" :)
Frank, and all, good job.