Mail Archives: djgpp/2009/12/14/21:15:12
"DJ Delorie" <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote in message
news:200912142351 DOT nBENpwZf002663 AT delorie DOT com...
>
> That's an impressive list. How many of those implemented DPMI 1.0 ?
> (not that it matters any more, sadly)
>
I didn't cross-reference _all_ of them - just _many_ of them. It seems
"many" to me is about 50%. I cross-referenced 16 that are DPMI hosts, 2
that aren't DPMI hosts (e.g., Pharlap 386|DOS extender, Novell DPMS), 2 that
use DPMI but aren't DPMI hosts (e.g., DJGPP, OpenWatcom compilers), 2 that
are the DPMI spec's. I didn't bother to cross reference the other 16. FYI,
most of those 16 are near the bottom of the list. I couldn't locate copies
of some of the older ones, especially Pharlap and Qualitas. I deemed many
of these as too obscure, specialized, incomplete, non-DPMI, undocumented, or
non-English. There are probably far more out there. There had to be some
hosts that went with many C compilers of the early 90's. E.g., what hosts
did Borland, Zortech, etc. use?
Of the 16 DPMI hosts that I looked at, the hosts which support DPMI 1.0
functions varies by DPMI function... The most complete is DPMIONE. But,
it's missing a couple, like 0C00, 0C01. DOS4G, DPMIONE, and HDPMI
(Japheth's HX) are most commonly listed on the 1.0 functions. DOSBOX and
CWSDPMI are listed on a few too. For 0801, I have ten hosts listed:
Causeway, DOS/32A, DOS4G, DOS4G/W, DOSBOX, DPMIONE, HDPMI, PMODEDJ, PMODEW,
WDOSX. It looks like five of those are associated with either DJGPP or
OpenWatcom or etc. C compilers. Overall 1.0 support, I'd say, is minimal.
0.9 support is far more complete. I haven't compared them for 0.9
completeness. But, a quick glance shows some 0.9 functions aren't widely
implemented either: 0B00, 0B01, 0B02, 0B03, etc.
Rod Pemberton
- Raw text -