Cross gcc Mailing List Archive

RE: i386 and gcc

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 09:46:44 -0000
From:
David Wood <david@thermoteknix.co.uk>
Reply-To:
David Wood <david@thermoteknix.co.uk>
Cc: "'crossgcc@cygnus.com'" <crossgcc@cygnus.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Michael Smith

>So your system components run in ring 0 or ring 1?  I don't see the utility
>here; the only benefit to be achieved from segmentation then is the ability
>to load without relocation.
Yes and not only that - run time linking.
 
>Then your OS microkernel needs to provide simple message-passing services, and
That's certainly something worth considering.

>(what if they terminate and the segment is reused?).
Once loaded I don't envisage them being unloaded (but your right, you never
do know how things will change)

For the rights or wrongs of it, I was taking OLE (or COM) as the model here
where interface pointers are used but these use proxy stubs and the kernal
does the rest (message pass) except in the case of in process servers, which is
the simplest case and the one I was looking at.

David

Follow-Ups:

Re: i386 and gcc

From: michael smith <miff@spam.frisbee.net.au>

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index