@SlayeR__

Quote:

SlayeR__ wrote: @ChrisH This whole OT started with a post Franko made, i responded to that post, and yes the space matters in this discussion since that is what is being discussed. The first post that SSolie made was about Trevors name and not his username, look for post 17.

Firstly... If my post was off topic then so was the original post it was addressing ie: post # 17...

Secondly... You clearly have trouble understanding plain English, so try and understand the facts (I'll make them simple enough so that even you should be able to understand them)...

It has been clearly shown here that Mr Dickinson does indeed sign some of his posts as "Trevor Dick", so ssolie trying to tell someone off for using "Trevor Dick" in a post is simply wrong... and I would like to know why he thinks it's ok to do so...

as he did so here...

http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=36944&forum=2&viewmode=flat&order=0#690998

That little space you are so fixated upon doesn't matter one tiny bit (except to you), you are the only one whom want's to discuss it for some bizarre reason...

My original post was not about whether it had a space or not, it was about asking someone why they think it's wrong to use a members name in the same manner that the member uses himself and that the member obviously has no problems with...

To clarify for you, Trevor doesn't appear to have a problem with this and no one else except you & ssolie have any problem with the FACT Trevor uses the following names here...

TrevorDick
Trevor Dick
Trevor D

So what's so hard to understand about that... !!!

Gawd, I wonder what Trevor himself thinks about all this nonsense...

_________________

@Franko

How many pages are you gonna drag this off topic issue?

Flagging it in one post seems ok, but going 20 rounds seems meh.

@Franko

perhaps steven solie needs to be made aware that he actually may be in danger of entering grey zone when using the nick ssolie as reference to himself?

anyway there is a number of people here to whom the placement of spaces is apparently of much more importance than whats written between them.

@Overflow

Quote:

Overflow wrote: @Franko How many pages are you gonna drag this off topic issue? Flagging it in one post seems ok, but going 20 rounds seems meh.

Considering I simply was asking someone whom posted in this thread a question about a comment they made publicly in this thread, which If I am "off topic" then so must be the person to whom I asked my original question then...

To answer your particular question which technically is "off topic" too if we are to judge things as being "off topic" by the standards you have just applied, then... for as long as someone want to keep posting the wrong "opinion" and it's not nice not to reply to someone who directs a post at you or mentions you in a post but has their facts wrong...

Hope that answers your particular "off topic" question & post...

_________________

@wawa

Quote:

wawa wrote: @Franko perhaps steven solie needs to be made aware that he actually may be in danger of entering grey zone when using the nick ssolie as reference to himself?

What ssolie calls himself is not the point here, what is the point is why ssolie thinks it's fine to "tell someone off" for using the exact same words that another user here actually uses himself as a name/ signature...

Quote:

anyway there is a number of people here to whom the placement of spaces is apparently of much more importance than whats written between them.

True... most likely spaces can be important to some folk a bit like the empty spaces between their ears, I suppose... if there are folk out there like that...

_________________

@All

Please, just stop this nonsense. Everyone who has postet more than one comment about this is guilty to most idiotic nonsense.

@cdimauro

Why are you quoting includes from 2.1 to prove that 4.2 will not be able to support SMP?

Clearly there are practices in the past that were inconsistent with SMP but many of those are now depricated, modifying system structures without using the appropriate API is now frowned upon and discouraged.

This might mean that some older 68k apps break, but many system unfreindly ones allready do.

Our system is designed to multitask, there isn't that huge a step in concept between multitasking and multiprocessing. The issue is going to be whether you can do it efficiently and gain maximum usage of the multiple CPUs. If a process must still call Forbid() and Forbid() then must stop all the processors, that clearly is going to reduce performance, so Forbids must go and be replaced by atomic locks of some kind.

_________________
BroadBlues On Blues BroadBlues On Amiga Walker Broad

@broadblues

Wow, an on topic post!
Yes, clearly all current software should not have a problem running in an SMP environment.
And if some software does, then you could borrow the concept of seperate "boxes" from MorphOS running some software in an SMP capable box while running the other apps on a single core.




Thought this was headed to Moobunny country.

Last edited by iggy on 11-Dec-2012 at 01:02 AM.

@topic

At some point I got a feeling that Petunia might not be the "final" solution in SMP capable AOS for 68k apps. Now when petunia's author is doing the UAE JIT for PPC, I'm even more sure that problematic 68k SW is going to be redirected to run under UAE instance.
(perhaps it will have AmiBridge/JanusUAE bits and pieces in it as well)

It could be that most if not all 68k code will run under PPC UAE on AOS, while using wrappers (or AOS4 elements built to 68k) to use AOS4 GUI elements from 68k apps etc. The end result might be that the integration of 68k apps does not visually differ from current petunia approach.

(if separate UAE instance is launched for every heavy 68k app, one will be able to utilice multiple cores also with 68k SW... kind of.)

Last edited by KimmoK on 11-Dec-2012 at 08:57 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 11-Dec-2012 at 08:17 AM.

_________________
- KimmoK
// For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA
//
// Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer?

@broadblues

Quote:

This might mean that some older 68k apps break, but many system unfreindly ones allready do.

Breaking backward compatibility is not limited to 68k applications only but also new PPC applications may break due to API changes.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@itix

Only if they were broken to start whit, no you can’t change the API, you can only extend, any fix has to be hidden for the application.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 11-Dec-2012 at 12:31 PM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@NutsAboutAmiga

If you are deprecating old APIs and programming techniques from Commodore then you are making changes that affect compatibility to existing software. Not all PPC software is written from scratch but ported from 68k and even newly written software may use deprecated features.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

Quote:

Such an operation cannot ever be made in AmigaOS due to the shared model of AmigaOS. File handlers, window pointers, allocated memory blocks (except MEMF_PRIVATE memory) are all globally sharable between *all* tasks in the system, if desired. This means that all this memory is global and cannot be virtually copied into another identical virtual space. Not without a major or complete rewrite (into being Linux) of AmigaOS anyway.....

I don't see how having a virtual address space would make AmigaOS a Linux clone...

Would you call Windows a Linux ?
What about Haiku ?

It's "funny" how having something modern and secure appears to be... "bad"...

_________________
http://www.warpdesign.fr/

@Leo

I do not know why some see modern features as "non-amiga". "Amiga" is for me efficiency and simplicity and that should be kept. I am convinced that modern features can be added without loosing this advantages. I see that at least possible for Aros that is running 68k applications and games in a sandbox (UAE). I cannot judge if that would create problems in MorphOS and AmigaOS where 68k and PPC is directly combined.

@itix

Quote:

Breaking backward compatibility is not limited to 68k applications only but also new PPC applications may break due to API changes.

That is possible yes. Less likely because PPC are more likely to be using the more modern APIs but still some don;t I'm sure.

Some can be rebuilt. Some will be left behind. This has always been the case for any major update in AmigaOS (or any other OS for that matter).

_________________
BroadBlues On Blues BroadBlues On Amiga Walker Broad

@broadblues

The problem is that you can't risk having programs not working properly, because be like trowing dice whit system if any of List structures gets damaged, and impossible to tell what program that did not work if a public List gets corrupted.

It has to work!!

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 12-Dec-2012 at 12:08 AM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@itix

Yes, I belive it's possible.

Make the old Forbid obtain all system mutex before disabling multitasking, and make old Permit free all system mutex after enabling multitasking.

And now that Forbid and Permit has become slow turtles its time to make new ForbidMP and PermitMP entry point to be only be used if no other option can be done.

And then create new API's that is provided for mutex lists that is easy and safe for programers to use, and possibly provide some warning about using legacy API's so that programers upgrade to the new API's.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@iggy

No Iggy that will never work, where is Qbox after all this time? and I think I know way its has not not become reality its because if you build a wall between Legacy and New, then the programs will no longer be able to talk to etch other, it will big problem for Windows, Screens, MsgPorts, Tasks and so on that is provided by public lists.

Unnecessary complexity.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 12-Dec-2012 at 12:17 AM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 12-Dec-2012 at 12:07 AM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

Unnecessary complexity.

Not really. Its a rather elegant solution.
Where's Qbox?
Until recently the hardware wasn't really powerful enough for it, so the developers focused on improving Abox.

In fact, process communication is the least of my worries.
It would require something more powerful then Ambient currently is to create the display.

My guess is we will see this on later multi-core PPCs that have a hypervisor.

The e6500 cored Qorlq's would justify this approach.

You can't justify total backward compatibility.
Thats why virtual machines have become so popular in the PC world.
Got something old that just won't run right?
Run it boxed.

Currently I'm using Parallels to run OSX and Win7 simultaneously.
We're not talking about that big a jump.

Last edited by iggy on 12-Dec-2012 at 02:10 AM.

@NutsAboutAmiga

You cant replace Forbid() protected section with mutexes without carefully examining possible side effects in your source code.

And after all we are just talking about potential performance optimizations here. It is the kernel that is responsible for SMP (or any kind of multiprocessing) and all implementation problems are only there. User side software is just fine.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook