From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Wed Feb 3 15:03:22 2010 Message-ID: <4B69D565.3010602@lutece.net> Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:58:29 +0100 From: OL User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mint Subject: Re: [MiNT] LDG vs. SLB vs. custom OVL-thingies References: <00933E7C-3B49-425B-AFCD-C7BF39DCD2AE@gmail.com> <4B689958.50001@lutece.net> <11a6f2b11002030054j4bd32a42me4037e91497e1f70@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: o.l@lutece.net Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mail.sparemint.org id o13K3LbN020381 Jo Even Skarstein a écrit : > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Paul Wratt" > Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 9:54 AM > To: "mint" > Subject: Re: [MiNT] LDG vs. SLB vs. custom OVL-thingies > >>> For this job there is alway's a good reason to add to system, this >>> is memory >>> management, simple application have no sure way to lock a memory >>> bloc if a >>> software allocate a memory bloc and crash there is no way to forbid >>> destruction by the system, even Mint SHM not lock memory (I don't >>> remember >>> if Mint share the memory or do a copy, I think it share it). > > Are you sure? I had the impression that a shared memory block exists > as long as atleast one process has an open handle on it. So if two > apps (or a shared lib and an app) shares a memory block and one of > them crashes, the memory block will not be freed. No it's very old for me I not work on it for 2 years, I have to do new tests to be sure. I do it soon Olivier