Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!att!dptg!rutgers!bpa!cbmvax!jesup From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Minix, Unix on the Amiga... Message-ID: <7585@cbmvax.UUCP> Date: 9 Aug 89 02:33:18 GMT References: <8908082312.AA10140@jade.berkeley.edu> Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA Lines: 20 In article <8908082312.AA10140@jade.berkeley.edu> 451061@UOTTAWA.BITNET (Valentin Pepelea) writes: >Randell Jesupwrites in Message-ID: <7570@cbmvax.UUCP> >> Not to say some resource tracking wouldn't be a bad idea. However, >> in a multitasking, lightweight process machine you have to be careful: many >> programs pass off resources (permanently) to other processes (or to no one: >> public structures, for example.) One can't merely add freeing of resources >> on program exit to current programs; they'll break. > >How about a new flag for the memory allocation routines? If resource tracking >is to be implemented, MEMF_NOTRACK would guarantee a memory block which would >not be tracked, and therefore not be deallocated when the program exits. Not compatible: older programs don't use it. It's possible to a MEMF_TRACK, though. Whether we will or not is another question (that I'm not answering, sorry). -- Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering. {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com BIX: rjesup Common phrase heard at Amiga Devcon '89: "It's in there!"