From fnaumann@mail.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Thu Dec 11 11:19:37 2003 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:15:26 +0100 (CET) From: Milan Jurik To: mint@lists.fishpool.fi Subject: Re: [MiNT] Shutdown() discussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1071034718.3fd6b15e15223@imp2-l.free.fr> <001f01c3bef0$c01e3720$420963d9@blaszak> <1071045922.754.9.camel@joy.sophics> <009f01c3bf91$b1b38040$eb0863d9@blaszak> <1071134219.769.45.camel@joy.sophics> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at sh.cvut.cz Delivered-To: mint@lists.fishpool.fi X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: M.Jurik@sh.cvut.cz Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-ID: X-List-ID: Hi, On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Frank Naumann wrote: > Hello! > > I don't understand this discussion at all. I don't followed all postings > in detail, especially the parts there it's getting personally. > > >From my OS design point: > > Personally I think a much better design is to provide something like > a special hardware, e.g. some addresses that are mapped into the I/O > area and are used like a piece of hardware for poweroff, calling > host system functions and such stuff. > For a standard CPU emulation yes, but not for JIT compiler. The standard way, how to detect access to HW memory space, is to set this space as inaccessible. When m68k code access this space, segfault is generated and handling of segfault is soooooooooo slow :-( x86 is much better for this, ports vs. memory, different instructions. > > Ciao > ...Frank > Best regards, Milan Jurik