Message-Id:	<199710231257.BAA07548@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz>
Subject:	Re: Some comments and questions
To:	mdevan AT md2 DOT vsnl DOT net DOT in
Date:	Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:57:00 +1300 (NZDT)
From:	"Kris Heidenstrom" <kheidens AT actrix DOT gen DOT nz>
Cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.OSF.3.95.971023160124.16073A-100000@md2.vsnl.net.in> from "Mahadevan R." at Oct 23, 97 04:27:03 pm
MIME-Version:	1.0

Mahadevan R. wrote:

>> Well, yes and no.  Obviously CWSDPMI is designed to be able to be loaded
>> as a TSR as well as automagically, because it does install itself if
>> invoked from the command line, so what it does is still not good
>> behaviour.  But as I said, it's a minor point.  I shouldn't have even
>> mentioned it, it makes me look so ungrateful!
> 
> AFAIK, CWSDPMI can behave as "normally" as any other TSR.  If you define
> "normality" as being able to detect its own presence and unload if
> required, then have a look at this:

[... snipped]

No, you miss my point.  If you load it twice, it loads twice.  This
serves no useful purpose (there's no point having the same DPMI driver
loaded twice) and just wastes memory.  In this situation a TSR should
say "already installed" and refuse to install another copy.  Or is
there some purpose in having a DPMI driver installed twice?

Anyway I don't want to argue about it any more - no-one believes it
is a problem in practice, and I wish I hadn't mentioned it at all.
The mailing list is busy enough already with productive discussions :-)

Kris
-- 
Kris Heidenstrom   kheidens AT actrix DOT gen DOT nz   Wellington, New Zealand
               Electronic designer and programmer
       "Good sense is the most valuable good on the market"

- Raw text -