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

Re: [MiNT] Shutdown() discussion

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Petr Stehlik wrote:

> 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.

 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.

> > 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).

 Again, am I confused? It does not matter where the hell the jar itself
is, what matters is what the pointers IN THE JAR point to.

 And I have to say that adding code to our OS to make emulators happier
makes me angry. So angry and scared that I dont know if I'll release oVDI.
The thought of having oVDI modified to make Aranym happy instead of
changing aramym itself pisses me off. 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'...


 Odd Skancke - ozk.atari.org - http://assemsoft.atari.org