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

Re: [MiNT] DATE/TIME cookies

To: "Petr Stehlik" <joy@sophics.zln.cz>
Subject: Re: [MiNT] DATE/TIME cookies
From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@issan.informatik.uni-dortmund.de>
Date: 26 Feb 1999 14:15:44 +0100
Cc: "Konrad Kokoszkiewicz" <draco@mi.com.pl>, "mint" <mint@fishpool.com>
In-reply-to: "Petr Stehlik"'s message of "Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:49:03 +0100"
References: <000001be6186$63b60de0$0401a8c0@joy.sophics>
Sender: owner-mint@fishpool.com

"Petr Stehlik" <joy@sophics.zln.cz> writes:

|> > No, I am asking why you resist to do the corner clock as ACC (or process)
|> > instead of using stuff that breaks the memory protection concepts.
|> 
|> Please tell me how DATE/TIME breaks the memory protection and why _CPU, _FPU
|> and other cookies do not break it.

Because _CPU, _FPU, etc, don't contain pointers, but simple,
self-contained numbers.

-- 
Andreas Schwab                                      "And now for something
schwab@issan.cs.uni-dortmund.de                      completely different"
schwab@gnu.org

Follow-Ups:
- RE: [MiNT] DATE/TIME cookies
  - From: "Petr Stehlik" <joy@sophics.zln.cz>

References:
- RE: [MiNT] DATE/TIME cookies
  - From: "Petr Stehlik" <joy@sophics.zln.cz>

Prev by Date: RE: [MiNT] DATE/TIME cookies
Next by Date: Re: [MiNT] DATE/TIME cookies
Previous by thread: RE: [MiNT] DATE/TIME cookies
Next by thread: RE: [MiNT] DATE/TIME cookies
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread