From:	Michael Tippach <mtippach AT gmx DOT net>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Is DOS dead?
Date:	Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:05:16 +0100
Organization:	.
Lines:	39
Message-ID:	<38D508CC.5F3EA970@gmx.net>
References:	<fmj8csoh6qqnpvrsdtlk83ec462s8a4sbe AT 4ax DOT com> <38C7D12E DOT 1E12 AT gmx DOT net> <i57gcsk294pgff526i9gihqsjmarlvhnv3 AT 4ax DOT com> <38CD09B3 DOT 7373 AT gmx DOT net> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000314094608 DOT 4527E-100000 AT is> <38CE19B2 DOT 69C7 AT gmx DOT net> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000315104128 DOT 17230G-100000 AT is> <38CF7CED DOT 505A AT gmx DOT net> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000315185511 DOT 20407P-100000 AT is> <38D0B4D1 DOT 380F AT gmx DOT net> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000316172141 DOT 5735H-100000 AT is> <38D11897 DOT 2ED0 AT gmx DOT net> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000319103934 DOT 13691A-100000 AT is> <38D4BCD3 DOT 767ACF49 AT gmx DOT net> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000319161058 DOT 15795B-100000 AT is>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	dialup-212.162.13.117.frankfurt1.mik.net (212.162.13.117)
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	fu-berlin.de 953488655 4676027 212.162.13.117 (16 [12290])
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language:	en
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, Michael Tippach wrote:
> 
> > > > > One problem with NT that needs to be worked around is that NT ignores the
> > > > > hight 16 bits of the user procedure address that is installed as a
> > > > > real-mode  callback (e.g., for handling mouse events).
> > > >
> > > > Does Win2K behave the same?
> > >
> > > No, it seems that this particular bug doesn't exist in W2K.
> >
> > So would you agree that the go32 stub could be modified to perform a
> > check?
> 
> I'm not sure I follow.  Are you suggesting that the stub loader be
> modified to install a real-mode callback?

Install- check -relase, yes. I may look ugly but it will work.

>  If so, the only way to know if
> that works or not is to make the callback be called, and crash.  Doesn't
> seem like a good way of identifying an OS...

It won't crash if you have a handler ready at both, CS:0x0000wxyz and,
say: CS:0x0001wxyz. This requires temporary allocation of some 64k of
DOS memory. But I don't think this would be a problem.

> 
> Besides, the stub loader is heavily optimized for size (it's 2KB long),
> and the above test would bloat it quite a bit.

There's always a price to pay. OTOH, would it really matter if the stub
gets like 100-200 bytes bigger?

Regards,

Michael Tippach

- Raw text -