Re: [MiNT] Future (was Re: MiNT 1.16)

[Petr Stehlik <joy@sophics.cz>]

On Pá, 2002-11-01 at 16:20, Konrad M. Kokoszkiewicz wrote:
> > I am glad you asked but to be honest I originally meant "you" as in "you
> > all MiNT developers" - that's why I posted it to the list.
> 
> Yeps, but in reply to my mail :-)

Note that I messed it up. I wanted to write "I am glad you answered",
not "glad you asked". I.e. I am glad for all answers to my question.

> At the other hand, if we want MiNT to boot (not just
> load from auto), a form of hddriver inside is necessary.

I am afraid that this is a bit too ambitious task (unless Uwe decides to
release HDDRIVER 8.x under GPL :) On Aranym it's of course possible to
integrate MiNT so tightly that it won't in fact boot from a boot sector
at all. It may just be started :)

> > As for integrating VDI and mouse accelerator, well. I have my mouse
> > accelerator in Clocky ;-) And fVDI (what else VDI would you integrate?)
> > is probably better on its own. At least Johan, its author, seems to like
> > the modularity better.
> 
> Yes, but the fvdi, IIRC, is loaded AFTER MiNT.

no. It's loaded before MiNT. MiNT is the last one in the AUTO folder.
Only things that *patch* MiNT are started after it (like 68882.PRG on
MC68040).

> Of course, this also applies to NVDI, currently.

NVDI is also started *before* MiNT.

> > check in their startup C library. And it's always the same - jump to
> > Super(), set up bus error vector, try FFFFFA42 (or what's the address),

> Sounds bad. Which compiler has such a startup code?

I don't know for sure but I guess it's PureC because > 50% of all
applications I have here do that.

> case, fixing this could be automated (a program which patches this), but I
> of course admit this would be harmful for everyone of us.

Yes.

> > Seems like giving up on virtual memory would be easier than patching all
> > of our TOS software base :)
> 
> I.e. we have to drop the progress in this direction and stay with bad
> programs forever. Not good.

Is it real true that virtual memory does not work when someone calls
Super()?

Petr