From:	Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: cwsdpmi
Date:	Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:12:25 CDT
Organization:	Rice University, Houston, TX
Lines:	21
Message-ID:	<3f4cbc49.sandmann@clio.rice.edu>
References:	<20030827034014 DOT 28093 DOT 00001084 AT mb-m29 DOT aol DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	clio.rice.edu
X-Trace:	joe.rice.edu 1061994788 9332 128.42.105.3 (27 Aug 2003 14:33:08 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT rice DOT edu
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:33:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-NewsEditor:	ED-1.5.9
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

> Only when no other version of CWSDPMI is found,
> it should use the version included in the executable.

If the other version of CWSDPMI is loaded into memory and
providing DPMI services CWSDSTUB will use it instead of
loading up another DPMI.  If the other version is on
disk and not loaded, CWSDSTUB won't search for it and will
provide DPMI services (for that image and any nested DPMI
image that might need them).

I've always recommended using the standard stub instead of
a stub with DPMI services.  The only downside is an extra
file in the distribution.  If you need any files other than
the .EXE to run, then there is no reason to insist on 
the DPMI being in the stub.

Only when you distribute a single EXE image (like unzip.exe
or ghost.exe) which is completely self contained does the
extra file become an issue.  But in that case you know the
image works well with the included DPMI, so there isn't a
need to search for an external one.

- Raw text -