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

Re: [MiNT] Shutdown() discussion


On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Odd Skancke wrote:

>  I thought only the cookie jar was moved to process private memory. What
> the pointers in the jar themselves point to is a whole different matter.
> Lets not get into a new situation like this, making it hard to support VM.

This is true, but I've already described how it could be done without
having the cookie to point to global addresses.

> It does not matter where the hell the jar itself
> is, what matters is what the pointers IN THE JAR point to.

This is true, of course. Please read my previous mail.

>  And I have to say that adding code to our OS to make emulators happier
> makes me angry.

Hmmm, OS should support HW. As we see ARAnyM as a virtual machine that
basicaly defines that the CPU instruction set is mc68040 compatible and
nothing more we would like to get the OS support ARAnyM just like any
other HW available.

I don't care what you think ARAnyM is... emulator, clone, whatever...

We have defined the NF interface so that it is compatible with all TOS
compatible OSes and even real machine can implement features via this
interface. So if you e.g. implement the shutdown NF way you would not need
to modify the kernel for this any more supposing the possibly newly
created machine would implement it via the NF interface.

> So angry and scared that I dont know if I'll release oVDI.

Keep it private, if you like. You are not the one who would save TOS
platform. Nobody would.

> The thought of having oVDI modified to make Aranym happy instead of
> changing aramym itself pisses me off.

It is matter of the point of view. ARAnyM is not considered to be an
emulator and therefore it is not supposed to implement each new HW that is
available as well as it doesn't for ST, TT, F030 or whatever existing.

> And my fears seem to come true .. now dudes want to support emulators
> internally, in the kernel. Ok, this might be a small issue, but all
> things starts 'in the small'...

__NO__ work that was done on ARAnyM required changes that would not help
other TOS (FreeMiNT) application development. Every tools we create are
usable even on a real platform (if makes sense, of course... the Host
filesystem access .xfs doesn't for e.g.)

What the hell you all really want? OS that evolves? Look into the CVS log
for FreeMiNT. It there were platforms from which the commit goes there
would be quite a few ARAnyM lines. Do you think you don't need it? Than I
would rather speak to the maintainer then to you instead. :(