From fnaumann@mail.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Wed Dec 24 14:40:45 2003 Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:37:24 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Naumann X-X-Sender: fnaumann@wh58-508.st.uni-magdeburg.de To: "[MiNT] Mailing-List" Subject: Re: [MiNT] using pexec() to load an overly In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: -4.9 (----) X-Spam-Report: ---- Start SpamAssassin results -4.9 points, 5.0 required; -4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] ---- End of SpamAssassin results X-Scan-Signature: 61705ef204a653e11bf724774e03a2ff Delivered-To: mint@fishpool.com 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: fnaumann@cs.uni-magdeburg.de Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-ID: X-List-ID: Hello! > I assume the overlay is a child of my process so it's legal for me to > work with it as I am? Or am I doing something bad here? It's not a child in case of processes as it reside in the same address room. I take a look on the ressource management for this case. > Any suggestions or such would be helpful. If it's a stupid design let me > know, I need this to work. ;-) The stupid design is the Pexec mode :-( Ciao ...Frank -- ATARI FALCON 040 // MILAN 060 ----------------------------------------- http://www.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~fnaumann/ e-Mail: fnaumann@freemint.de