Subject: Re: MACHINE_NONCONTIG
To: Wolfgang Solfrank <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: None <email@example.com>
Date: 11/15/1996 09:47:25
> MACHINE_NONCONTIG is an option only for the port maintainer (at least I'm not
> aware of a port that would work with AND without MACHINE_NONCONTIG). I.e.
> whether to use MACHINE_NONCONTIG or not changes some internal interface
> between the machine-independent and machine-dependent code parts of the
> kernel (see below for a more complete description).
Well, some macs have contiguous memory, others have holes... The macs
have been using MACHINE_NONCONTIG for some time (0.9 or 1.0, I think).
> Maybe this should be stated more prominently in order to at least encourage
> new porters to code for the MACHINE_NONCONTIG case instead of the old one.
If we want to do that, it would make sense to reverse the define to
be MACHINE_CONTIG and define that on the ports where it isn't used.
It does make some sense to move all ports to the MACHINE_NONCONTIG
interface since it would mean one less conditional in the VM system
and the MACHINE_CONTIG can be represented as a MACHINE_NONCONTIG
configuration with one bank.
Allen Briggs - end killing - firstname.lastname@example.org