Re: [MiNT] Shutdown() discussion

[Petr Stehlik <joy@sophics.cz>]

On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 08:38, Konrad Kokoszkiewicz wrote:
> ago. IIRC, I have pointed out, that the natfeat makes direct JSR calls to
> ROM

No, it doesn't. Currently it uses the value of the __NF cookie as a
pointer to a structure of two pointers (IIRC). These pointers are not
fixed to point to ROM as I suppose FreeMiNT kernel would contain its own
NatFeat code. And I believe that with your system of "private copies of
cookies" we would be able to copy even the code that invokes the
NatFeats physically (which are currently illegal opcodes) into process'
private memory. So basically there would be no pointers outside of the
process memory.

> It was then argued on the list, that it does not matter, because *Aranym*
> does not support memory protection

ARAnyM does support memory protection for years now. Such an argument
would be stupid.

> *However* I see now that natfeat is also to be accepted on real machines,

?? what real machines are going to accept it?

> it, it is simply yet another cookie-jar-alike thing with its famous pointers
> to global memory. And after two-three years we will hear that memory
> virtualization on MiNT is impossible, because of the precious nifty features
> offerred by natfeat, which however makes VM no-work.

As I explained above NatFeat cookie need not to point to global memory
(thanks to the private copy of a cookie).

And BTW, I'd like to see the memory virtualization much sooner than in
two three years.

Petr