Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!pacbell.com!pacbell!att!mcdchg!laidbak!obdient!igloo!miroc!caw From: caw@miroc.Chi.IL.US (Christopher A. Wichura) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Memory Protection! Message-ID: Date: 12 Aug 90 10:15:59 GMT References: <1145.26bd4989@waikato.ac.nz> <13693@cbmvax.commodore.com> <13756@cbmvax.commodore.com> Lines: 26 In article <13756@cbmvax.commodore.com> valentin@cbmvax.commodore.com (Valentin Pepelea) writes: >Another problem is that even if you provide the possiblity for new applications >to run protected within the environment, the fact that older programs cann still >jog around the address space and wreak havoc, defeats the initial purpose. >Either you provide memory protection to everybody simultaneoulsy, or you >don't at all. This I don't understand. If an old program goes and stomps on memory protected by a program using some new OS call, shouldn't an exception be generated which the rexception handler would pick up? Thus you get a software failure requester and no `real' harm is done. Given that if the memory wasn't protected you could easily end up with the stomped on program getting very confused and crashing the system, I would rather have the software failure requester... -=> CAW /////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Christopher A. Wichura caw@miroc.chi.il.us (my amiga) u12401@uicvm.uic.edu (my school account) Please! Do not send mail to my school account unless mail to miroc bounces. I often do not check uicvm.uic.edu for periods in excess of a week. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////////////////////////