Mail Archives: djgpp/1996/03/17/09:31:08
On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, Shawn Hargreaves wrote:
> So, is there any reason why I couldn't just lock all the memory from
> &start, for (&end - &start) bytes, to include all the functions in my
> program? That would prevent _any_ code from being swapped, but virtual
> memory would still work for malloced data, and it would be a lot more
> reliable than my current approach.
Locking code is not enough, you need also lock the data that is touched
by the locked code.
- Raw text -