Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!unido!mpirbn!p554mve From: p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Michael van Elst) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Need something like exec() in Lattice Message-ID: <1154@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de> Date: 1 Sep 90 14:59:13 GMT References: <350@cbmger.UUCP> Reply-To: p554mve@mpirbn.UUCP (Michael van Elst) Organization: Max-Planck-Institut fuer Radioastronomie, Bonn Lines: 22 In article <350@cbmger.UUCP> peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) writes: >In article oliphant@telepro.UUCP (Mike Oliphant) writes: >I can't believe that Manx is able to load a new program on top of it, >into the same memory area, as I understand it from your posting. >Also I think it cannot use the same task structure, so it just MUST >open a new process. If Manx does all this, tell me, that would sound >interesting. As far as I know, Manx uses several - say undocumented - techniques to load a program and pass control to it. Now, how does the CLI start a command ? The same is done by the Manx routines, LoadSeg()ing the new module, creating certain system structures, patching others and then roll up the old segment list to free the memory of the old module. Who needs system conformance ? Let's force OS revisions to make Manx executables work :-) Regards, -- Michael van Elst UUCP: universe!local-cluster!milky-way!sol!earth!uunet!unido!mpirbn!p554mve Internet: p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."