Re: [MiNT] XaAES / GEM memory issues

[Noah silva <nsilva@sparcy.atariuniverse.com>]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Konrad M. Kokoszkiewicz wrote:

> 
> > > The call only would allow to verify pointers. While the main evil thing is
> > > that an AES with traditional design needs the memory protection to be
> > > hacked and overridden, which in turn creates all sort of crap problems
> > > with stability, signals, shutdown, exception handling and so on. That's
> > > why the F_OS_SPECIAL facility _will_ be removed some day. You apparently
> > > are the only one of the followers of this topic, who does not seem to
> > > understand this.
> > 
> > And you seem not to understand that my suggestion completes the implementation
> > of this flag, nothing more.
> 
> And you don't seem to understand that the flag's concept is about to be
> abandoned, and not subjected a further development.

Sorry, but what is "about to be abandoned"? week? a month? Six months? 5
years?  If the flag will be gone tomorrow, then sure, waste time, but I
got the impression that it wouldn't be gone until an AES that didn't need
it suddenly appears, which I would guess is probabley -over- six months
away, in which case, why not spend 5 minutes to add the code?  (am I
missing something here?)

thanks,
   noah silva

> 
> --
> Konrad M.Kokoszkiewicz
> mail: draco@atari.org
> http://draco.atari.org
> 
> ** Ea natura multitudinis est,
> ** aut servit humiliter, aut superbe dominatur (Liv. XXIV,25)
> *************************************************************
> ** Taka to juz natura pospolstwa, ze albo sluzy ono unizenie,
> ** albo bezczelnie sie panoszy.
> 
> 
>