Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!fernwood!uupsi!sunic!isgate!krafla!adamd
From: adamd@rhi.hi.is (Adam David)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Was: How is Atari doing in Europe?
Message-ID: <3318@krafla.rhi.hi.is>
Date: 29 Jun 91 15:37:24 GMT
References: <3283@krafla.rhi.hi.is> <1991Jun21.104233.24151@informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <3300@krafla.rhi.hi.is> <1991Jun26.124900.5744@informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <1991Jun27.171831.15580@informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Organization: University of Iceland
Lines: 31

csbrod@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Claus Brod) writes:

[about reclamation of GEM space]
>Much more address range is "wasted" by the generous hardware register
>assignments.

32 kB was fine. 1 MB is certainly over-generous on a system with maximum
16 MB address space. The reason that it was 32 kB is presumably so that
all the hardware can be accessed using absolute short addressing modes.

>I don't know a single application that would run on a 1 MB ST without
>GEM and doesn't because GEM installs its own data areas.

True, but less data space is available to the program. When we get into
multitasking it might be necessary to choose between several non-GEM apps
or one GEM one. I do not say GEM is bad or takes too much space, only that
it is a pity not to be able to return that space when no longer needed.

>lots of other, more important things in TOS that should be improved
>before this.

Absolutely!

>Most of the memory GEM uses is malloc()'ed just like any other memory block.

So all that is necessary is to incorporate an exit mechanism in the GEM code.
Might this happen someday?

--
Adam David.
(adamd@rhi.hi.is)