> I sent a message to the list earlier today asking whether I should
[...] Of course, I read this AFTER asking...
> (1) The "static variables" are exactly which ones? We shouldn't have
> any static variables that require initialization code to be run -- given
> the limitations of the current initialization code, it *won't* be run
> for the i386 target.
Er, the JAVA /class/-static variables in "jos.system.interrupts",
name intXXX, from 001 to 015. Sorry for any confusion. You (next
paragraph) disabled all the interrupts and then turned them back on for
the java code to play with, which is the Right Thing to do; we just punted
on what to do with the clock interrupt back when we were doing that part
of the design. (Say! That means we've made it pretty far downfield.:))
> Let me know what the status of your i386 build is, so I can tell whether
> I'm either degrading things terribly, or the new changes are no-ops.
> Like I said, I'm sitting on a whole bunch of changes...
If I've got FN_TRACE turned on and all the VM tests running, it
dies after the first keystroke in the consoled; haven't tested the new VGA
driver at all; if I turn off FN_TRACE and all the VM tests, it runs long
enough that I can confirm the various console driver changes I've been
making; I've not crashed it yet there. (Though now that I think about it,
FN_TRACE shouldn't have any effect on how long things run and I've not
bothered to see if it actually does...)
If you're sitting on a whole bunch of changes, it'll probably be
easier for me to committ my stuff first. (Not much, yet, unfortunately.)
Oh, given that some of the corrections JM & Bocek made were to
math ops that /should/ have been checked before this, if anyone feels like
writing up a more comprehensive suite of test for init.java, do, with my
encouragement.
-_Quinn
_______________________________________________
Kernel maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jos.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
