Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!pikes!mercury.cair.du.edu!isis!chanson From: chanson@isis.cs.du.edu (Chris Hanson) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Help --> How to prevent the visit from the dreaded guru Summary: Please! Keywords: Exec, Messages, Protected memory, MMU, Hunks, Caffeine. Message-ID: <1991Jan7.033402.14474@isis.cs.du.edu> Date: 7 Jan 91 03:34:02 GMT References: <611@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> <1991Jan4.224833.24914@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <17130@cbmvax.commodore.com> <1991Jan5.213642.16547@isis.cs.du.edu> <17135@cbmvax.commodore.com> Reply-To: chanson@isis.UUCP (Chris Hanson) Organization: Matrix Lines: 31 In article <17135@cbmvax.commodore.com> jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) writes: > Won't work. A message usually has pointers to other areas of >arbitrary memory, or has an extended structure (ala StandardPacket), etc, etc. >As has been discussed before, MEMF_PUBLIC can't be used since each person >has had a different idea as to what should be public and what shouldn't. Ahhh, true. I spoke before thinking there. > A better idea. You _could_ allow segments of code from a loadfile >to be protected (at least without many problems), and you could allow >applications to request protected memory. Could you then please consider myself begging for such a feature? Such programs as Enforcer are great for develop-time, but if we can add some cover-the-user's-butt type of capability to all NEW programs it is a big plus in my mind. I mean, Why should my perfectly innocent program get spammed by DeluxePaint3? If I can protect the OS from my mistakes, and have my program be protected from the mistakes of others, I can sleep a little better, eh? >Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering. What exactly does 'Keeping' AmigaDos entail anyway? ;) Chris - Xenon -- #define chanson Christopher_Eric_Hanson || Lord_Xenon || Kelson_Haldane I work, but you don't know who I work for. And they don't know I'm here. "Someone thinks of us, therefore we are."