Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 15:06:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200005091906.PAA10862@indy.delorie.com>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT delorie DOT com>
To: alain AT qnx DOT com
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <200005091512.LAA22852@qnx.com> (alain@qnx.com)
Subject: Re: Perfomance of gc-simple
References:  <200005091512 DOT LAA22852 AT qnx DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 11:11:54 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Alain Magloire" <alain AT qnx DOT com>
>
> mlock() and friends would be noops ? since it is there
> to protect against other processes.  Unless there is
> a way in DOS to proctect/lock certain parts of the memory.

We do have mprotect, but it only works with CWSDPMI and one or two
other DPMI servers which provide extensions to DPMI 0.9 spec.  Windows
doesn't.

As for mlock and munlock, I think we can implement that, since locking
memory is supported.  In fact, every DJGPP program locks part of its
memory at startup, because it installs a hardware interrupt handler
(to intercept Ctrl-C and generate SIGINT), and hardware interrupt
handlers need to have their memory locked.

> At the top of my head, I remember many applications on Un*x
> use mmap() to grab some memory and maintain there own pool,

Yes, but why use mmap for that?  Why not use sbrk?

> Was not there a VFS lib for DJGPP at one point ?

What's that?