Date:	Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:32:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id:	<200003101732.MAA22041@indy.delorie.com>
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT delorie DOT com>
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<obafcsolqf5h9fg5fh5o22afa2e773va0k@4ax.com> (message from Damian
	Yerrick on Thu, 09 Mar 2000 13:41:06 GMT)
Subject:	Re: Compiling TCL with DJGPP
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000305095409 DOT 29735O-100000 AT is> <8EF1685DDbrianhawleybigfoot AT 209 DOT 99 DOT 56 DOT 11> <3vndcsor0c7bkotj9upnrct9hudhsg08p8 AT 4ax DOT com> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000309141454 DOT 1851F-100000 AT is> <obafcsolqf5h9fg5fh5o22afa2e773va0k AT 4ax DOT com>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> >> I was referring to DPMI program compatibility.
> >
> >That's a non-issue.  If Windows 1.0 had a DPMI host built into it,
> >DJGPP would use it.  If it didn't, CWSDPMI would be loaded.
> 
> That is, unless "Protected mode not accessible" or there's a
> really buggy DPMI in Windows.

I don't think Windows 1.0 had a DPMI server at all.  As a matter of
fact, I don't think it had a DOS Extender, either.

> QDPMI from QEMM, IIRC, was crap.

Which version?  All the versions since about 1994 were not bad.  The
only bugs were in allocating lots of memory.  Latest versions are free
from those bugs.  I'm still using QDPMI from time to time, for testing
purposes.

- Raw text -