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 Jesup  writes 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!"