Message-Id:	<199703061902.NAA90652@audumla.students.wisc.edu>
Mime-Version:	1.0
Date:	Thu, 06 Mar 1997 13:03:56 -0600
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
From:	Scott Fleischman <safleisc AT students DOT wisc DOT edu>
Subject:	Re: __djgpp_base_address
Cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

>If the problem that bugs you is that the _CRT0_FLAG_LOCK_MEMORY is not
>tested by the startup code, then I suggest that you change the startup
>code so it does ensure memory is locked.  The sources are available
>and people who wrote it are still around and may be reached via the
>DJGPP forum, in case you have any questions.

Why should I modify the code when it is trivial to put the code into the
program?  The only real problem with the code that you mentioned is that I
didn't lock the stack.  Is this the only thing you found wrong with it?  I
can easily add that, and I will.

>> IMHO anyway. After it grabs all available memory, the mem is locked and
>> paged in, and not given back until the program finishes.
>
>No, I don't think this will work like you intend.  Do I understand
>correctly that you malloc all available physical memory and then lock
>it?  If so, it might still fail to lock, because memory isn't paged in
>until it is really accessed (at least with some DPMI hosts, CWSDPMI is
>one such), and `malloc' doesn't access it.  If you need to allocate
>the memory *and* page it in, you need to call `calloc', *then* lock
>it.

I do just that, but not with those particular functions.  I use dmpi
functions to get the mem info, sbrk to get the mem and then lock it using
dpmi fucntions and finally use a simple for loop which touches all the
memory to make sure that it's there, much like the code I posted previously.
That is what I meant by "locking and paging it in."  Where did you get the
idea that I didn't do these things?

- Raw text -