Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/02/02/12:14:45
On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Shawn Hargreaves wrote:
> >This is not entirely accurate. There *is* a bit in the selector
> >descriptor which says whether the segment is code or data.
>
> True, but that doesn't help with a djgpp program where the code and data
> segments both cover the entire address space of your program!
Well, I suppose the DPMI host could watch addresses referenced with the
CS selector and assume that at least the 4KB page around that is code.
But this is far-fetched; I never meant to contradict your original
comment on this.
> The problem is that even if someone spent the time to upgrade CWSDPMI to
> a full DPMI 1.0 implementation, it would be pretty much useless because
> we still wouldn't have these features under win95, and I don't think
> many people these days are willing to write programs that will only work
> in a clean DOS environment!
I agree.
> What do you think it would it take to make Microsoft start supporting
> DPMI 1.0? It is ridiculous that they are still only using version 0.9 of
> an official standard like this, especially since the real thing offers
> so many major improvements, but I find it hard to imagine them taking
> much notice of our complaints :-)
I don't think there's anything that can persuade them, either. The
DPMI server built into NT is a clear evidence, since it is even worse
than the one in Windows 95.
- Raw text -