🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <208.25f3c82b@waikato.ac.nz> hamish@waikato.ac.nz writes:
>
>dca@toyland.UUCP writes that he would like code segment protection on
>amigados, so that errant processes wouldn't stamp on his process.
>
>I say Hear Hear!

I say there, there! Huh? Where?

>Great idea, just what I said a while ago & got told that it was impossible,
>because of the way that people abuse the MEMF_PUBLIC flag, and the fact that
>libraries are shared.

The fact that libraries are shared has nothing to do with it. They don't
obstruct memory protection. Neither does the fact that people sometimes
forget to specify the MEMF_PUBLIC flag.

The problem is that system structures and messages have to be passed in
public memory, which by definition can be stomped upon by any task. So if
one crashes, the machine can still not recover.

>Have I made sense to anybody sofar??

Your argument over shared libraries might be correct, but the question is
moot anyway. Now let me rehash something clearly:

1. Memory protection can only be implemented by redefining the MEMF_PUBLIC
   flag.
2. Then it would be trivial to implement memory protection, but *all*
   applications would then crash and have to be revised. Even the shared
   libraries on the workbench disk would have to be revised.

If you guys want to give Commodore the mandate to go ahead and drop backwards
compatibility completely for the sake of memory protection, then go ahead and
say so, but keep in mind that the above two points are the Gospell truth.

Valentin
-- 
The Goddess of democracy? "The tyrants     Name:    Valentin Pepelea
may distroy a statue,  but they cannot     Phone:   (215) 431-9327
kill a god."                               UseNet:  cbmvax!valentin@uunet.uu.net
             - Ancient Chinese Proverb     Claimer: I not Commodore spokesman be