[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: MiNT SHM compared to others

To: t150315@proffa.cc.tut.fi (Tamminen Eero)
Subject: Re: MiNT SHM compared to others
From: hohmuth@inf.tu-dresden.de (Michael Hohmuth)
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 00:51:59 +0100 (MET)
Cc: mint@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu (MiNT Mailer)
In-reply-to: <199512111132.NAA19694@proffa.cc.tut.fi> from "Tamminen Eero" at Dec 11, 95 01:32:02 pm
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, TU Dresden, Germany

Tamminen Eero wrote:

> I begun to think about how X programs do this -- by shared memory.  That
> would be the fastest way to implement the stuff (locally).  By browsing
> MiNT manuals I got the impression that using SHM would actually be very
> simple.  However, as TeSche's W version currently works also under Linux
> (graphics stuff needs little-endian byte order, so no PC version :)),
> this 'should' then also work under Linux.  Do Linux and MiNT SHM schemes
> differ, and if they do, how?

Read up on mmap() and shmget(); these are the (BSD and SysV,
respectively) ways of handling shared memory under Unix (and both are
implemented in Linux and modern BSDs).  I don't know how similar they
are to MiNT's scheme.

Michael
-- 
Email: hohmuth@inf.tu-dresden.de
WWW:   http://www.inf.tu-dresden.de/~mh1/

References:
- MiNT SHM compared to others
  - From: Tamminen Eero <t150315@proffa.cc.tut.fi>

Prev by Date: Re: SED
Next by Date: Re: MiNT SHM compared to others
Previous by thread: MiNT SHM compared to others
Next by thread: Re: MiNT SHM compared to others
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread