Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!sunybcs!ugkamins
From: ugkamins@sunybcs.uucp (John Kaminski)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Process vs Task
Message-ID: <5279@cs.Buffalo.EDU>
Date: 15 Apr 89 02:49:05 GMT
References: <8459@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: nobody@cs.Buffalo.EDU
Reply-To: ugkamins@sunybcs.UUCP (John Kaminski)
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science
Lines: 16

In article <8459@polya.Stanford.EDU> rokicki@polya.Stanford.EDU (Tomas G. Rokicki) writes:
>I don't think there is *ever* a reason to use a Task instead of
>a Process---or am I wrong?
>
>-tom

Possibly several.  The two that come to mind are the scarcity of the resources
involved.  If you are running a (gasp) 256K (i.e. original) Amiga, the less
memory you use the better.  Also, aren't there only 20 process slots?  Or are
those only processes that are CLI's?  Or is there no difference in THOSE two?

Around the LoadSeg() problem: One could conceivably AllocMem() for new process
space then use a memory copying routine to clone the needed parts, and finding
the address of the stuff to copy via FindTask(0) and "peeking into" the struct
that is pointed to by the results obtained from that call.  Hmmmm....this
method has some definite possibilities for emulating fork().