Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cbmvax!cbmehq!babylon!rbabel
From: rbabel@babylon.rmt.sub.org (Ralph Babel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: Starting another copy of your own code (was Re: Help! (AmigaDOS CreateProc/LoadSeg)
Message-ID: <06577.AA06577@babylon.rmt.sub.org>
Date: 12 Mar 91 19:10:26 GMT
References: <63329@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <19578@cbmvax.commodore.com> <06417.AA06417@babylon.rmt.sub.org> <18cb4d63.ARN0b56@swinjm.UUCP> <1991Mar9.170859.4810@Sandelman.OCUnix.On.Ca> <06493.AA06493@babylon.rmt.sub.org> <752@tnc.UUCP>
Reply-To: cbmvax.commodore.com!cbmehq!babylon!rbabel (Ralph Babel)
Lines: 20

In article <752@tnc.UUCP>, m0154@tnc.UUCP (GUY GARNETT)
writes:

> In the example code from AmigaMail, the 'code' is a single
> instruction which is built into a data structure. When it
> is branched to, the code cache will miss (that location
> has never been executed before;

How do you know? The same memory region might have been part
of a code hunk - and FreeMem() doesn't clear the code cache.

> The method is also always safe if you invalidate the cache
> right after you put a value in CodeHdr.Function;

With the 2.0 cache support functions it's certainly a lot
safer (and easier) than before, but just wait and see how
many programs will fail nevertheless with the 68040's
copyback cache enabled.

Ralph